
A Disturbing Dialog About Ubuntu and Unity - angusgr
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/A-Disturbing-Dialog-About-Ubuntu-and-Unity
======
goodside
It's not reasonable to expect a design team to be able to function under the
condition that whenever a user disagrees with the placement of a UI widget,
they must either publicly justify their decision as being objectively correct
or make the widget's position a user-configurable option.

There is an enormous class of design problems that have several appealing
solutions, one of which is better than the others, but not so much better that
it's worth the time to find it. "Where should the launcher be?" is very likely
a member of this class: There probably actually _is_ a best place for the
launcher to be, but it's better to just have it in the wrong place than to
have to argue about it on a bug tracker, and certainly better than having to
make a configuration drop-down for it.

The entire reason you have a design team is because design-by-complaint
reliably produces shitty software. Unity exists because every other Linux GUI
has fallen victim to this process. Will it succeed in not being shitty? I have
no idea. Ubuntu will sink or swim on the merits of its leadership. But the
_only_ way to avoid this one major failure mode is for Shuttleworth to ignore,
as politely as possible, the complaints of his users.

~~~
old-gregg

      > Unity exists because every other Linux GUI has 
      > fallen victim to this process
    

That's very debatable. According to me, Gnome 2.3 is by far the best designed
UX for a desktop operating system. Like most people, I generalize based on my
own limited experience, and I have seen people grow up and learn how to use a
computer in Gnome who were disgusted by Windows and OSX user interfaces. Like
all animals, humans can be conditioned and there's simply no such thing as
"best UX for all".

Lets look at Alt+Tab functionality, which now in Unity (and Gnome3) switches
between "apps" instead of windows. The problem with Unity/Gnome3 is that
they're doing _exactly_ what Shuttleworth claims to avoid. Quoting Mark:

    
    
      > we're not that interested in matching functionality
      > that was in Win95, especially if we think that 
      > functionality will get dropped in Windows 8 or 9 or 10.
    

Unity (and Gnome3) are both busy copying obsolete UI concepts from OSX, which
itself is stuck in the 80s. I would say that they'd be better off copying
Win95 instead, at least Microsoft recognized (correctly) back then that a
concept of an "app" makes no sense on a modern desktop, and _windows_ is what
users want to manage, not "apps".

Mr. Shuttleworth admits to be heavily influenced by Android and iOS. That's
weird to me, since desktops are ultimately very different beasts. The concept
of an "app" came back from the grave only because the 1st generation of mobile
devices were very weak, DOS-like if you will, at multi-tasking and IPC. So...
Mr. Shuttleworth picked the wrong corpse to invigorate.

In their mindless pursuit of copying everything from OSX they didn't even
bother recognizing OSX own bugs like broken virtual desktops. See, Apple
themselves failed to copy them properly from Unix UIs (windows from different
desktops in OSX are mistakenly combined in the same useless giant Alt+tab
list). But the thing about Apple, though, is that they can afford to have an
obsolete window management circa 1985 because their windows are shiny and fly
around without lag, while Unity just recently learned how to scroll text
smoothly.

In the end, Mr. Shuttleworth really shouldn't mention Win95 at all, which now
seems to emerge as a clearly superior desktop UX of all 3, nearly 20 years
after its introduction.

~~~
bostonvaulter2
Do you know about the alt+` shortcut to switch between windows of an app? It's
really nice.

~~~
old-gregg
I do, BTW Unity/Gnome3 copied this kludge as well and they're proud of it.
This is an equivalent of launching a new computer line which throws away SSDs
in favour of punch cards.

See, "apps" made sense in the prehistoric times when single-threaded desktops
with limited RAM were primarily used to do one thing at a time. But things
changed. The concept of an "app" have not been making sense for a long time:
you can run Gmail and Facebook in two browser windows (which together live in
the same process) or you can have a single window (Chrome) launching one
process per tab, or you can have a terminal with several processes running in
different windows, or you can have a copy of Microsoft Word embedded inside of
an Excel spreadsheet. Similarly you can have an iframe with embedded Google
Maps inside of your Wordpress blog. So what's an "app" then?

Microsoft correctly recognized in early 90s that the concept of a "program" or
an "app" was obsolete, and modern UI should be using "window", "document" or
"folder". An app is just an implementation detail: you can have 3 apps
involved in rendering a single document or drawing the same window. Early
smartphones couldn't handle these tricks (like multi-tasking) well, so this
temporarily reincarnated idea of the "app" came back from the grave, to be
happily copied by Unity just because "iOS has them".

Boo.

~~~
drivebyacct2
You say this, as every major platform migrates towards apps. Windows 8: (huge
push on becoming) app centric. Mac OS X: (becoming )app centric. Android: app
centric. iOS: app centric. What OS isn't? Linux. (eh, edit, this really isn't
fair. Linux is as "app-centric" as I need it, though the "linux is so secure"
assumption is uh, going to become fallable as its competitors approach an app-
centric, isolated model. (also, X doesn't protect apps against eavesdropping,
etc). Also, Ubuntu's Software Center is making the experience at the least,
app-like.)

I think in terms of apps. "I need to switch back to my browser". "Alt-tab". "I
need to change windows in this app", "Alt-`". I guess owning a Mac got me
prepared for it, but I love this new behavior in Gnome3.

~~~
old-gregg

      > You say this, as every major platform migrates towards apps.
    

That's the way it goes with these damn computers. In circles. I recommend you
unpack a bag of floppies, get yourself some Windows 3.1 and take a good look
at Program Manager.

~~~
pak
IDK about you, but I generally have >30 or so windows open at a time. Listing
them all in [modifier]-tab would be hard to navigate (by window title?) but
having the icons of all the apps is actually kinda manageable.

It goes in circles because computer technologies are bursty. With Win95,
managing by window was reasonable because having >10 windows would usually
crash the box. That's also why every window was a taskbar entry, as there was
actually room for all of them... By WinXP, when virtual memory became more
robust and RAM cheaper, you needed to sometimes collapse taskbar buttons by
app to make them fit... And now in Win7, it's the default with just big icons.
People leave way too many windows open now because closing them is a chore,
and people are crappy/lazy memory budgeters. Apple realized this with iOS, and
ported some relevant concepts back to Lion--apps should be able to close and
restore at any time, and their open-ness is irrelevant to the user. So yeah,
that's why we're back to thinking about apps; windows may be what you most
often interact with, but they are no longer the mental unit of desktop
management. It's now all about task-->app-->windows.

As an aside, let's consider how effed up MDI is, the inconsistencies in
window/toolbar management between Win Office apps, and how the Mac "one window
per document, palettes appear on app activation" scheme has managed to stay
remarkably consistent for over a decade.

~~~
gizzlon
_"I generally have >30 or so windows open at a time. Listing them all in
[modifier]-tab would be hard to navigate"_

Stick them on different virtual-desktops and they will not show up in the Alt-
tab.

I find virtual-desktops a great way to organize, that has been available for
20 (?) years

------
Bo102010
I'm not a big fan of Unity, but I'm sympathetic to Shuttleworth in this
matter.

After following open source projects for some years, it seems they're all
eventually accused of some dark corruption - usually after making some UI
change.

"You're betraying the ideals of the [project / community / founder]," the
accusers say. "It used to be about giving users [freedom / choice / slightly
less RAM usage]. Now it's just about [main leader of project / 'the
developers' / the corporations]'s whims! Why not just give us [a setting / the
old behavior / a large-scale feature]!"

Take a look at Firefox forums after every release, or Pidgin's bug tracker
every time they tweak the GUI...

It reminds me of an older Less Wrong article -
(<http://lesswrong.com/lw/uu/why_does_power_corrupt/>).

Now, it could be that all projects are slowly decaying into [ego / corporate /
dictatorial designer]-centric tarpits, but I kind of doubt it.

~~~
yaix
I disagree. Projects need these wake up calls and should listen to them much
closer.

Firefox is a good example. I have used it since "Phoenix 0.1" came out.
Already during "Firebird" times, users have started to complain that it is
getting slower and bigger. Mozilla ignored it. It needed Google's Chrome
browser to ring the bells at Mozilla and show them that the user complaints
were valid after all.

Compare that with well managed projects like the Linux kernel. There its
usually the BDFL who does the wake up calls, after having listened to user
complaints and suggestions. Not saying that everything is perfect, but the
kernel has been hugely successful for 25+ years and is still well focused.

Ubuntu OTOH has completely lost its original focus of providing an easy
desktop Linux. They started pushing server versions and now suddenly
smartphones. As if the desktop would disappear in the next years.

~~~
nkurz
Upvoted, but what's your math for 25+ years of Linux kernel development?

~~~
yaix
Off by 10. I meant 15+ years.

------
naner
As a long-time Linux desktop user (but Ubuntu outsider) I have been watching
this unfold for quite a while. I think that Mark Suttleworth is smitten by
Apple and desperately wants to create a mostly free-software OSX-ish Linux
distro.

He copied the anchored menu bar, moved the window controls to the left, copied
exposé, copied some elements of the OSX panel, tried to improve typography,
etc. Some of these were actually good developments (the Ubuntu branded font
set is nice) but most of the time it just feels like a cobbled together
interface.

It also seems he is trying to copy some other elements of Apple. He is
eschewing customization (ostensibly) for uniformity and simplicity. And he has
made Canonical's designers the top decision makers. Programmers implement.
Community gets what they're fed. Usability is their ultimate trump card (as we
see in this case).

This doesn't appear to be working well, though. Apple hired world class
designers and payed them tons and gave them a massive amount of power. And
they had Steve Jobs who would say "this sucks" when no one else would.
Canonical (probably?) has pretty good designers given near-absolute power. I'm
thinking there's quite a difference between "world-class" and "pretty good".
Not to mention that Shuttleworth, an amazing man in his own right, is no Steve
Jobs. He probably doesn't say "this sucks" enough and maybe even doesn't know
what actually does suck when it comes to design and usability.

Anyways... I wish Shuttleworth well but I'm not very optimistic about
Canonical's future. And I think they'd do better if he brought his own
personality, creativity, and intensity to the project instead of chasing Jobs'
shadow. Or maybe he should find a new leader to take his place.

~~~
Daishiman
It seems unfortunate to me that the Canonical designers didn't just start from
the very functional, very slick Gnome 2.x releases and improved and polished
them while keeping a stable base. Instead there seems to be a need to reinvent
a usability paradigm that worked extremely well and gave users a lot of power
while keeping a level of simplicity which, while higher than that of mobile
interfaces, is in most ways appropiate for desktop interfaces.

~~~
bilban
It would be nice if Gnome 2, worked without crashing gnome-panel erratically
on my desktop!

------
kiba
I think ubuntu is taking too much, doing too much. It wants to be on the phone
and the tablet, and the desktop, etc. It is also a server distribution. It is
also trying radical changes to become the mac osx of the linux world.

Well, it's not even a good distro at work. We're using the last two version of
ubuntu, because everytime we upgrade, it breaks.

I used archlinux and I liked what it does. I expect archlinux to break and I
expect archlinux to be up-to-date. Even when archlinux breaks, it's no biggie
because I backed it up and it's easy to reinstall archlinux.

Ubuntu? What do I expect? Stability and up-to-date programs. Major upgrade
does not implies major breakage. Now, they want me to expect Mac OSX like
experience? They are now even more unsuitable for work than archlinux is.

~~~
oinksoft
People should just be using Debian if they want a stable system with good
package management with a large repository. Archlinux is very good, but its
repository is tiny compared to Debian and I trust Debian package maintainers
more than pretty much any other distribution. I'm happy to install the few
packages I need up-to-date, like Firefox, manually.

~~~
digikata
I love Debian, but I wish I could find a distro that was Debian + pragmatic
hardware driver packages. That was the original value proposition that Ubuntu
provided.

~~~
yena
Sounds like you should try Linux Mint Debian Edition. I've been using it since
I gave up on Ubuntu 11.04

------
rfugger
I respect that Canonical is trying to make Ubuntu an OS that regular Mac and
Windows users will feel comfortable switching to. They must realize that this
will alienate many long-time Linux users, but that doesn't hurt Linux as a
whole, because those people can just use Debian or another distro. It's a
difficult choice and I'm glad someone's doing it. I may not be using Ubuntu
that much longer, but I'm not going to bitch about it.

------
gbog
No one seem to see that the real problem here is not Ubuntu, Unity or Gnome
X.y. The real issue at stake is putting the designers on top of the decision
hierarchy. It have worked well with Apple, it was in its DNA, but it is _not
at all_ in Linux DNA (neither in Google's or Amazon's or Microsoft's).

I do not mean to say design and UX and usability is not important, but still,
it is a matter of priorities. If a designer decide to have transparent
flapping buttons and if this make the code behind it extremely complex and if
it makes impossible to customize and configure manually any parts of the
system, then I would say _it does not belong to Linux_.

Maybe it is a case with Ubuntu. Maybe Ubuntu is a Linux for designers. Then I
am wrong, and will switch to another distro. For me Ubuntu was an easy to
install Linux with few driver issues, and my first step after installing it is
to remove the useless Visual Effects in preferences.

~~~
jiggy2011
For something designed by 'designers' it is seriously ugly.

------
ianb
There's some justification in deferring to user interface designers with
respect to the vision for the interface. An authoritarian system can work,
though you should be sensitive to how you present that authority. "wontfix" is
socially dangerous to use.

But authority only works if you use that authority to do the right thing.
Unity isn't doing that. I am in part frustrated that Unity got _worse_ with
the latest Ubuntu release, and I'm frustrated that it has lots of bugs, and
the interface is neither traditional nor discoverable. But even worse than
these problems is the problem that Unity isn't pursuing a worthy goal. It's a
rethinking of how you manage applications and files on the Linux desktop, but
the Linux desktop has never been particularly functional or filled out and it
falls behind further with time. The major trends we see is the desktop
spiraling in on a single application, the browser, and files and media moving
to the cloud. Unity is messing around with something that will never win the
hearts and minds of new users, while it alienates what users there already
are. I've never met someone who loves Unity! There's a couple people who
accept it, and a much larger group that hates it. (Personally once I figured
out to install gnome-shell I can like Ubuntu again, but Unity really did
almost push me over the edge to get a Mac.)

It's not to say that a rethinking of the Linux UI is an entirely useless
endevour, but Ubuntu and Canonical should not be pursuing a fantasy of a rich
ecosystem of GUI apps. There are maybe a dozen relevant applications on Linux
now, and that number will only get smaller. But the beauty of this is that if
you just pursue an experience that encompasses those dozen applications, and
you dive deep into those applications (which you can because they are all open
source!) then something really neat could come out of that. I think people
could get behind an idea like that, even if those same people simultaneously
felt annoyed with particular changes that came from that. But it's hard to
look past those problems when it feels like present usability is being
compromised for a misguided fantasy.

------
kevinpet
I think a lot of people are operating under the assumption that Ubuntu is
supposed to be for power users. I've used Ubuntu for years, never paid them a
dime, don't ever expect to pay them a dime. This makes me suspect that maybe
I'm not the person they intend to make money off of.

Far more likely they want to cut in on corporate IT, where saving $50/seat in
OS licensing and $100/seat in hardware adds up to real money.

------
yason
Mark already said it: if you don't like it, then don't use it. It's his money
on the line, you go fork your own Unity. This is an instance of "you can't
please everyone so don't even try."

While it would definitely be _nice_ to please everyone, even merely trying to
do so will seriously derail you from your own vision and design. That
direction can either be yours or nobody's.

People also overestimate the effect of this kind of soloing. At worst, they
will just create something nobody will use.

And if the majority of users will cease to use Unity, there will be 3rd-party
packages for Gnome3 or Gnome2 or whatever it is that people want. As a
critical review, if Ubuntu ever get to _that point_ it might indeed be a good
idea for Ubuntu to accept defeat and return to the mainstream. However, it is
no earlier than that when we will see if they truly are stupid. And if they
are, then there's a fair chance of forking and there will not only be Kubuntu
and Lubuntu and ${WHATEVER}buntu but also Gubuntu.

------
sciurus
I'm curious why any volunteers still contribute their time to Ubuntu instead
of contributing to more open and meritocratic distributions.

~~~
hollerith
Maybe because in addition to openness, meritocracy, democracy and equality
they value other things, and they understand that insisting that all human
relations be open, meritocratic, democratic or equal will hobble the pursuit
of those other things.

Some participants in open-source software development underestimate the costs
and the disadvantages of openness, democracy, etc. They seem convinced that if
everyone would just uphold those values, everything will turn out well, and
they seem impervious to evidence to the contrary.

It might be the case that if Canonical's designers and leaders get to boss the
programmers around, then not enough programmers will continue to contribute to
Ubuntu. But that is an empirical question that might turn on considerations
other than openness and meritocracy. Maybe many programmers will continue to
volunteer to help Ubuntu even if they understand that programmers and users do
not have an equal voice in the direction of the project.

------
annomination
just install XFCE and don't worry about it. as long as the apt repositories
are stable, let them play with their GUI and you can go back worry about
something more interesting.

~~~
apg
If Linux ever becomes popular on the desktop, it won't be because of Unity,
that's for sure. It's a resource hog and it breaks too many established UI
conventions. Unity forced me to start using the keyboard for most things.

I'll give XFCE a try. I don't want to leave Ubuntu, because I like the
packages and I don't have to read a manifesto sized manual to install it or
learn another package system.

~~~
mambodog
UI conventions established by what? Other Linux desktop environments?
Established among whom? Old-hat Linux users?

Perhaps that's not who they're targeting.

~~~
pyre
There is already a contingent of non-power users using Ubuntu. If they
alienate those users then who are they really targetting? Shouldn't they worry
about user retention in addition to user acquisition?

------
dasboot
I use Ubuntu as my exclusive desktop OS.

Ubuntu / Linux has far bigger problems than Unity. (Jump to point 5 for
conclusion).

1\. There are huge regressions.

With the upgrade to 11.10 my laptop's battery life has been cut from 5-6 hours
to 2-2.5 hours. This is on an Asus UL machine that on Windows gets 10 hours.

This may be a kernel issue, but Canonical could add a lot of value by at least
warning, or better, fixing/minimizing the problem. There are all kinds of boot
parameter hacks, etc. to try to fix this, but it requires a lot of reboots and
fiddling with internals. How about including a script to optimize these
settings that is run after the upgrade?

"Linux on the desktop" is a dangerous misnomer, because on desktop computers
power is not a concern. But nowadays power consumption is almost everything.
Canonical already has its sights set on mobile devices, but hasn't even
addressed power consumption for notebooks properly.

2\. Poor communication of core functionality changes

New additions are presented and lauded in glossy detail, but removed features
are not as clearly presented.

Nautilus (file manager) used to allow drag and drop copying/moving of files
onto the left pane "bookmarks" folders. This was simply removed without
warning, crippling quick drag and drop filing. Once again, this is "upstream",
because of the Gnome/Nautilus teams' decisions, but it affects users in a
noticeable way.

The initial update to Unity (11.04) removed all gnome applets, and made the
time tracking software I used to use inaccessible. The upgrade to 11.10 made
me lose my skype app/status indicator.

I don't care if my dock is on the left or bottom, or my open-close buttons are
on the left or the right. Most of Unity's "coolness" is Compiz anyway - zoom,
desktop switching, etc., so all that was available before Unity. For launching
applications, gnome-do is still much faster, light-weight, and flexible (e.g.
allowing creating/opening individual tomboy notes).

By communicating feature additions and subtractions better, people won't be so
negatively surprised. Set proper expectations.

3\. Key consumer software weaknesses

No good media creation suite. I was trying to make a photo slide show with a
soundtrack a while ago, and I went through two days of installing/testing,
setting up ppa's, compiling sources, etc. to get the latest versions, and
nothing really works well. I mostly code, write, and use the web, so it's not
mission-critical for me, but for a "consumer desktop OS", the absence of an
official and well-functioning suite of applications akin to Apple's music and
movie makers is a weakness.

Other apps like Evernote and a more up-to-date Skype would be nice as well.

4\. What hardware does it run on flawlessly?

When you buy a computer with Windows or OS X, you know that everything will
work. With Ubuntu/Linux, you don't. It's a huge stress factor before buying a
new computer. Ubuntu has "certified hardware", but it's buried on some wiki
page or other back page. This information should be front and center on the
home page, so that I can buy something with confidence that it just works.

5\. Conclusion

Ubuntu (whether Unity or Gnome) is far more usable than Windows (messy config
menus, no multiple desktops, no full-screen desktop zoom, inconsistent
shortcuts, etc.), and at least as good as OS X (which for example doesn't
allow you to change the system's font size globally, and is less keyboard
navigation friendly).

I'm considering abandoning Ubuntu again, because it can't compete on power
consumption.

I am sympathetic to Canonical being annoyed by the bitchy entitlement
complaints over superficial UI features (e.g., open/close buttons left or
right). It's bike-shedding to the max.

That said, I think better up-front communication of changes can help set
expectations. It forces the designers to reason why they are
removing/changing/adding something. This doesn't have to lead to drawn out
discussions, but some design decisions seem to be "shot from the hip" without
realizing that they may affect/ruin thousands of people's work flow.

Lastly, there are huge issues like power consumption and predictable hardware
compatibility that currently heavily weigh against Ubuntu/Linux.

~~~
enobrev
#3 is one of my biggest gripes, in general. The Gimp is one of the worst
products I've ever taken the time to try to learn. I'm not just tweaking
photos, I'm trying to do some work as a professional, working on files given
to me by other professionals. Forget about trying to open a PSD with more than
a couple layers on it. Don't even bother.

And the interface... I don't mind spending a week or two learning an interface
if it will allow me to get the job done, but The Gimp makes me want blood.
Decent media software is the ONLY reason I keep a Virtual Box image of Windows
7 on my drive. Well, that and the occasional browser testing, but I find
that's less of an issue in recent years.

As for hardware, I've run into Very few problems on a few DIY systems and
laptops / netbooks. Graphics compatibility has always been an enormous issue.
Especially multi-card for 3+ monitors. I assure you it's possible, as I've
done it a couple times, but I tend to fall into a slight depression once the
battle of getting it to work is over. Otherwise, I've been incredibly lucky.
Install and go.

The battery issue is a major one. I've found that Lubuntu keeps up well on my
netbook, and I rarely unplug my work notebook, so I don't run into it much,
but you're spot on about the importance of getting that right, or at least
making the correction simple.

Fine points, overall.

~~~
Joakal
Gimp's latest update includes interface changes:
[http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/GIMP_2.6_Released_Off...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/GIMP_2.6_Released_Offers_Major_Changes_to_Interface/)

~~~
skore
That is an article from 2008 - hardly 'latest'.

As for Gimp itself: I must admit that I love it and love it a lot more than
Photoshop. I use it to post-process the pictures that I take (example:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/valanx/sets/72157627905845341/> ) and while I
have no need for anything fancy, I have yet to find something that beats the
speed of the Gimp.

Yes, Alt+c, adjust, Alt+i, s - you do have to get down to your keyboard if you
want speed, but once you're fluent with that stuff, you just breeze through
it. Put differently: The Gimp gets out of my way and provides just the
functionality that I need. I love that.

------
sutro
For those frustrated with Shuttleworth's attitude and with the massive step
backwards in stability and usability that is Unity, try Linux Mint. I had to
go through a lot of painful, time-wasting experiments to arrive at that
advice.

------
enobrev
These sorts of complaints seem so absurdly dramatic. I don't understand the
reasoning behind them. They somehow bring up an eerie image in my head of
someone holding their spouse hostage in the basement for lightly mentioning
that they wanted to take a photography class. "No, dear, you're not allowed to
be anything besides what you were the day I met you. Change is not in the
cards for you, unless I make those changes". Creepy.

That overbearing spouse deserves to be left in the dust immediately, and maybe
some of these old users do as well. Not that they would be truly left behind,
considering the vast landscape of other equally expensive options available
requiring just as much effort to install - or MORE, if that's your thing.

We've been talking about bringing Linux to the desktop for more than a decade.
And it's not even close. So a company comes along and says: Listenting to you
guys isn't working, so we're going to try something else. And now they're
somehow considered the antithesis to Linux. What is "Bringing Linux to the
masses" supposed to mean? Making all computer users around the world
cantakerous curmudgeons who can change every pixel any graphical interface can
ever hope to offer? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that world. I like Linux
geeks, and consider myself one, but I also like all the people in my life who
will never even care what Linux is.

And maybe there is a way to the masses via the old ways. I implore you to
invest your time and money to find out. I would honestly love to watch that
unfold, and I'd probably install that version as well to see if it fits me. In
the meantime, I'm going to be happily using Ubuntu everywhere, as I am now -
on my 2 year old DIY desktop with 2 giant 27" monitors (worked upon first
install, with no proprietary drivers - 3 screens: not so easy), on my
television (DIY home theater running xbmc - hdmi audio and video - also worked
upon first install - no proprietary), and on my laptop at work (thinkpad, also
worked immediately), and of course, on a couple servers at various stages of
deploy.

As unpopular as the opinion may be around here, I really enjoy using Unity.
It's new and obviously imperfect, but it's one of the better user experiences
I've found on Linux. I felt the old gnome 2 desktop was a step back from
Windows 7 when I switched my media center to it last year. It looked as though
I was installing software from 15 years in the past, trying to fit into a
world that had an inch of dust on top of it.

I like the windows-7-like dock bar in Unity. I like that searching for apps
via keyboard is king (although the sorting sucks, sorting by usage is
essential). Not a huge fan of the omni-preset menu bar, but it's not really
THAT big of a deal (admittedly having 2 giant screens makes that possible). I
don't give a damn about screensavers, as I haven't used one since flying
toasters were the in thing. Truth be told, I spend far too much making things
ON Linux to care much about Linux itself. And that's the way it should be. At
least that's the only way I can stand to use Linux on every single computer I
own.

~~~
einhverfr
The issue here is a lack of communication. For example in LedgerSMB, we get
occasional users asking for MySQL support. We send them a (lengthy) canned
response detailing why MySQL support is not on our priority list and in fact
why we wouldn't accept patches if they were written. We politely advise people
to look for other accounting programs if this doesn't seem desirable to them.
Pretty soon we got fewer and fewer. People could see what our position was,
why it wasn't open to debate, and so forth.

But reading a lot of this what I see is "won't fix. Sorry, against our design"
with no attempt to either leave the door open for future changes or figure out
what the user wants. Better approaches include a long-term feature requests
queue or some other way of preserving feedback for later review during design
sessions, or a canned response which details why a category of feature
requests is unwelcome and inviting further discussion of what could be done
instead. If it is not applicable, the user ideally should be challenged and
asked to justify why they need what they say they need before the bug is
marked wont-fix with no discussion.

~~~
enobrev
I wholeheartedly agree that communication is the issue. And everybody is doing
an awful job of it right now (Users and Canonical).

"Figuring out what the user wants" isn't necessarily the answer either. Not if
your goals are as lofty as bringing Linux to the masses. Un/fortunately, the
current user base is NOT necessarily the future.

But if they want to bring "us" along, there are options. Drive the design-
centric stake into the ground. Put their designers front and center with blog
posts and marketing and workshops. Make it real. Let those who want the same-
old to make the choice to go elsewhere - cordially.

And from there, teach the function-first world from which it comes why design
is important, by leading through example. Open the curtains on this dark
basement of a community to let some light in and start a long and important
conversation about personal hygiene, kerning fonts and rounded corners. Help a
couple app developers make some real money selling a simple yet well designed
app through the new software center.

In my mind, that's real communication and leadership. Bickering over features
won't get anyone anywhere, and while their hand-waving "won't-fix" is NOT the
way to go about it, neither is wasting too much time on people who probably
won't like what Ubuntu is trying to become.

Personally, I like the new stuff, and I'm looking forward to seeing what's
next.

~~~
einhverfr
It's not an issue just of figuring out what the user wants. It's figuring out
_what is not working for the user and why._

In general you can assume that what's not working for current users will not
work for a large subset of future desired users.

------
padobson
This reminds me of a fight in a church about how high on the wall the cross
should be hanging.

Bitter arguments among side-stream groups (church-goers, linux-users) are a
much bigger reason why these groups do not attract mainstream audiences then
what it is they're fighting about.

Unity, Gnome, and KDE are all headed towards a more Mac-like UI because Apple
is the most lauded software design company in the world.

Like church-goers, Linux users should be supporting and celebrating innovation
in design that are meant to increase use in the software. If such innovation
was more broadly celebrated for its own sake, then it is much more likely that
one of the major players would be willing to risk new design decisions - to
really experiment with the UI. Instead, the same changes are all adopted by
the major players because trying something too different will get your
ridiculed, and that leads to losing early adopters, and that leads to a
diminishing user base.

If you want to see Linux become more mainstream so that a generation of
computer users can have a little more software freedom, then join the
discussion by celebrating experimentation instead of condemning it.

~~~
kitsune_
The question is, has Apple "solved" UI? Some might argue that they have
succeeded on mobile devices. But what about the Desktop? In my opinion, the
desktop is still a ghetto. Be it Windows, Ubuntu or OS X. Open a couple of
applications and documents and well, OS X crumbles from a UX point of view. Do
I need to see all open Finders, applications and open docs when I should be
getting stuff done? Multi-tasking leads to high complexity and the visual
organization of all the information seems to be unresolved problem.

Secondly, is it worth wile to bring the mobile experience to the desktop?

~~~
padobson
I don't have answers to either of your questions, and neither does anybody
else. The answers are not going to come from fights about what UI should be,
but from as many OS developers as possible doing as many experiments as
possible on the largest number of users possible.

My point was that this isn't going to happen if the community continues all of
this back biting.

------
lwhi
This is a philosophical battle. Apple has the ability to make decisions
without resorting to committee politics.

Shuttleworth is trying to gain some of this advantage for Ubuntu.

It might seem dictatorial, but I think he's got a point .. if Ubuntu is going
to innovate and create differentiation from other OSs it needs to change. An
element of faith is needed to allow that change to occur.

------
cmiles74
The debate over where to place a particular widget or what bits of the user
interface are customizable seems off-target to me. What struck me most was the
fact that we had a polite community member doing his best to describe a
problem that he was very concerned about. He felt that people in the community
of Ubuntu users were feeling ignored and he suggested that an easy solution
would be to provide more detail on why a particular issue in Launchpad is
flagged as "wontfix". While the effectiveness of this solution is debatable,
Canonical focused on how the community feels selfish and entitled. Ironically,
instead of Canonical clearly explaining to this community member why they
wouldn't be more descriptive on issues flagged as "wontfix", the discussion
degraded into just the sort of name calling and posturing that this community
member was attempting to alleviate.

~~~
fader
" the discussion degraded into just the sort of name calling and posturing
that this community member was attempting to alleviate"

It might be enlightening to read the comments on the bug dispassionately and
see where the name calling and posturing is coming from and where it is not.

------
pnathan
I appreciate the direction Canonical is taking Ubuntu. I neither condone nor
condemn it; it is a valid direction to take software development.

However, the direction does not seem to line up with typical open source
hacker goals (it's very hard to adjust unity even in the smallest ways, and
there seems to be some number of breaks from typical conventions, e.g.,
breaking xscreensaver), which is one of the key values of the Linux world.
That, I believe, is the controversy here.

I use Bodhi at home, and have been real happy with it.

------
jfoster
Design by democracy doesn't work.

Ubuntu has always been about targeting the mainstream as far as I can tell.
They do a good job of it, and there's plenty of other options for those who
think otherwise.

------
midwestwebdev
I guess I'm confused about the whole issue. Personally I hate Unity, which is
why I installed Gnome 2. Isn't that the point of Linux? Being able to
customize it to your liking?

~~~
jiggy2011
I am happy with gnome 2 as well for the most part. Is it still under active
development?

~~~
fmoralesc
No. There's a fork, though, called Mate (<https://github.com/Perberos/Mate-
Desktop-Environment>).

~~~
jiggy2011
From the github page:

"MATE Desktop Environment, a non-intuitive and unattractive desktop for users,
using traditional computing desktop metaphor."

Excellent! Just what I want!

I wonder how active this will be and whether it will see any improvements or
just maintenance

------
ilaksh
Most people hate Unity. They are sticking with it. Canonical needs to be
profitable.

OK, so which distribution is everyone switching over to in place of Ubuntu?

~~~
fader
"Most people hate Unity."

Can you show me the data that you've gathered on this? I'd love to see the
user survey.

(Is it maybe possible that just because you don't like something, others still
could?)

~~~
ilaksh
I am one of the few people that I have run into using Unity.. I don't hate
it.. its just that I haven't heard much of anything else about Unity except
"god I hate Unity". Not scientific.

------
cfontes
Well, I hate Unity the UI looks like an old Nokia phone makes your Computer
look like an bad designed android tablet.

I am switching to Debian after 10 years of Ubuntu I was a big defender of
Canonical and their SO and but now I lost it...

------
djhworld
dialogue

------
bluedanieru
_That's why iOS has a springboard in only one place, same for Android. These
are modern interfaces, based on serious design work. Our goal is to compete
with those, so we're not that interested in matching functionality that was in
Win95, especially if we think that functionality will get dropped in Windows 8
or 9 or 10._

So they want Unity to be a GUI for tablets? How far up your ass does your head
have to be, to think that a GUI designed for desktop use, and a GUI designed
for tablet use, can be used interchangeably? Someone ask Mark, he'll know. Or
someone who worked on Metro since they seem to have the same parts of their
brain broken. If Microsoft does break into the tablet space, it will be from
work on Windows Phone 7, it will not be from Metro. Apple recognized this when
they used their phone GUI for tablets despite having a perfectly good desktop
GUI around, and Canonical is all about copying Apple like a fucking funhouse
mirror, how did they not pick up on this?

If they want to target the tablet space, good for them. I think the ship has
probably sailed, but more competition there isn't going to hurt. But don't
fuck traditional desktop users, who currently account for _100% of your user
base_ , in the process.

~~~
einhverfr
Exactly right. I am going to state the obvious here. UI's should be designed
around their input methods. If the input on a tablet and a desktop are
different (mouse vs fingers) then use a different UI. Plain and simple.

Gnome 2.3 was a very, very good UI aimed at desktops. 3.0 is another kinda
sorta tablet UI that only kinda sorta works on desktops (I am playing around
with Gnome 3.0, XFCE, and a few others). The fundamental problem is that what
works well with one in one input environment breaks badly in another. This was
Apple's great contribution with the iPhone and the iPad.

Attempts to merge environments will get you with something that kinda sorta
works everywhere and does not work anywhere well.

~~~
jiggy2011
Totally Agree, there is a reason Microsoft are seperating Metro and the main
Windows UI and that apple have seperate types of devices (Mac / iPhone +
iPad).

If you want Linux for tablets/phones just get android.

------
derleth
Am I the only one who loves Ubuntu and does not use Unity at all?

Basically, what I want out of a distro is a convenient platform to build the
system I want. That's Window Maker with a lot of xterms, an Emacs session, a
Firefox session, and possibly other applications as I need them.

Any distro can give me that much. The reason I pick one over the other is ease
of administration. Ubuntu gives me this in the package management systems, the
large repositories, hardware support, and, if all else fails, large, well-
trafficked forums where questions actually get answered. (I'm leery of less-
used distros because I know, I just _know_ , that I'd stumble on some odd
corner-case problem that nobody who's used that distro has seen and be up too
late diagnosing and fixing it myself.)

So all these posts that imply Unity is the only way to use Ubuntu sound, to
me, like people implying New York City is the only place to live in America.
It's big and it's in all the movies, but there's a whole continent out there
just beyond.

~~~
gnaffle
I'm an old Debian and Ubuntu user. I moved to Ubuntu for my desktop since I
could install it and it would just work, with a sane enough GUI. With each new
release the previous years, they've made design decisions that I don't like.

While it's nice that they try to improve the desktop, it seems like they
forget that in the real world, Linux adoption happens with power users
recommending (and supporting) new users with their Linux installation. Maybe
Ubuntu can change that, but we're not there yet. And if Ubuntu doesn't cater
to the power users _as well_, one day they'll wake up to another Linux
distribution gaining popularity.

I've switched over to XFCE (Xubuntu) for now, but it seems like I might be
better off going back to Debian. After all, I can join the Debian community
and actually have a say if I disagree with its direction.

------
Causification
I am an irregular Linux user and am not deeply involved in the Ubuntu
community, but over the past several months I have seen the general attitude
of "random geeks" change dramatically with regards to Ubuntu. A year ago the
standard response to a new user inquiring about Linux was "install Ubuntu,
it's easy, there's lots of help available. Go get 'em tiger." Now, Ubuntu is
usually spoken of with a kind of regretful contempt. I didn't much care for it
myself, but Ubuntu used to be the public face of Linux, the thing 95% of the
Windows/OSX users hit if they get interested in Linux. As far as I can tell,
it's fallen out of the good graces of the power user community. It appears as
if Ubuntu has decided to forsake the early adopters and power users in favor
of the newbies and average Joes. That may be well and good on principle but I
don't see it as a strategy capable of sustaining an OS ecosystem that doesn't
come preinstalled on Dick and jane's new laptop.

~~~
slowpoke
> A year ago the standard response to a new user inquiring about Linux was
> "install Ubuntu, it's easy, there's lots of help available. Go get 'em
> tiger." Now, Ubuntu is usually spoken of with a kind of regretful contempt.

True. I used to suggest Ubuntu myself (actually, I was one of the people who
started with Ubuntu, now I'm on Arch).

I've switched to either suggesting to install one of the forks of Ubuntu
(mostly Kubuntu or Xubuntu), Linux Mint or even Crunchbang.

~~~
DanBC
Good grief please don't suggest crunchbang for new users!!

Unless it's used as a transition for a clueful, but new to Linux, user who's
going to learn a bit and then move to a different distribution. (Probably Arch
or Tiny Core, if you're suggesting CrunchBang.)

~~~
slowpoke
>Unless it's used as a transition for a clueful, but new to Linux, user who's
going to learn a bit and then move to a different distribution.

Exactly to those I would point to #!. By the FSM, I would never suggest #! to
a user that doesn't already have a degree of technical knowledge.

------
drivebyacct2
I don't mind, nor love Unity, though I quite enjoy GNOME3 (forgiving the rash
of bugs), but give this a shot: Log into Unity, Press Ctrl+T. Enjoy.

~~~
SkyMarshal
For those of us who can't do that atm, what does it do?

~~~
bhassel
I am guessing he is referring to this:
[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/8147...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/814799)

~~~
drivebyacct2
Yup, it's also (impossible?) extremely hard to close without login/logout.
IIRC, a `killall nautilus` wasn't even sufficient.

A workaround is to use gnome-tweak to have nautilus not manage the desktop. I
highly recommend it. As much as I don't like nautlius, I feel that it drawing
the desktop is flat out archaic.

------
ypcxz
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sect>

