
Linux should rival Apple, urges Ubuntu founder - kirubakaran
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=102215
======
donw
The point that most Linux users and developers seem to miss is not that a good
user interface needs to be pretty -- it needs to be consistent. Sure, the
stylish looks of OS X do a lot to woo people to the platform, but the
experience is why people stay.

Consistency is the area where Linux fails miserably. Perhaps this is due to
the lack of a single visionary who leads the way in Linux desktop development,
but I'd say the problem lies more in the 'not built here' mentality of the
developers. Which is kind of ironic, because the entire point of free software
was that anybody could contribute to improving it.

Consider this: Think of your top ten Linux applications, and the GUI toolkits
they use to handle their interaction with X11. I'll wager that, out of those
ten applications, you can probably list four or five different GUI toolkits,
each of which works _slightly_ differently. Why isn't there just one _really
good_ GUI toolkit?

I think the answer lies in pride -- everybody wants to have 'their' project,
so they start their own, rather than contributing to an existing codebase. For
the same reason, open-source project maintainers often do an awful job of
listening to their users and co-developers, because their pride of being at
the head of the train is threatened by other people making key decisions.

This pride also extends out into assuming that the user of said application
_wants_ to be an expert in its use, which leads to overly complicated
preference panes, nonsense confirmation dialogues, and so on.

This is why Linux applications often have the most appallingly inconsistent
interfaces, and sadly, I can't think of a good solution to the problem.
Frankly, I wish I could, because I would love to run Debian Linux on a Lenovo
tablet, and have a GUI that is as useful for me as OS X.

~~~
wmf
One way to start to fix this problem is with marketing. Linux is just the
kernel; GNOME is the OS. Ubuntu and Fedora are GNOME distros. You shouldn't
expect to run KDE or Motif programs on GNOME; after all, they were written for
a different operating system. Of course, this divides the former "Linux"
market into even smaller pieces...

~~~
donw
But this is the exact problem. Why should each window manager be its own
platform? This is like having every car produced by GM or Toyota being totally
custom-built, with parts that can't be interchanged, without great pain, with
anything else in the range.

~~~
wmf
I'm just talking about the current state. It is a fact that interop between
GNOME, KDE, and whatever else is so poor that the only way to achieve
usability today is to pick one platform and stick with it completely. In some
cases the differences between the platforms are arbitrary and they could
interop or be merged, but in some cases the differences are philosophical and
IMO irreconcilable (you might as well merge the Democratic and Republican
parties). Given that situation, I don't see any way to create a single Linux
desktop market. But then you probably shouldn't listen to me; I don't even use
Linux on the desktop.

~~~
thebigshane
That is a situation where survival of the fittest eventually sets in.
Eventually one will finally win just enough users to start eclipsing the
others. My guess it will be gnome since it is the WM of choice for Ubuntu and
Red Hat. And as more corporations get involved with development in the Linux-
realm, there will be more incentive to standardize things and less incentive
to fork.

------
tx
"Desktop" is too broad of a definition. Gnome/Nautilus already kick Finder's
ass, but is it enough to recommend Ubuntu over OSX to my parents? No.

What Linux needs, is PC manufacturer's support. I am not talking about drivers
here, I'm talking about quality pre-installs done at the factory. Once
suppliers see this, they'll provide quality Linux drivers in order to compete.
And for users stuff "will just work".

ThinkPad T61 running Ubuntu is in many ways superior to MBP/OSX (and 30%
cheaper), but only because I deliberately configured it with only Linux-
compatible components and spent a weekend tuning it upon arrival.

~~~
Prrometheus
>What Linux needs, is PC manufacturer's support. I am not talking about
drivers here, I'm talking about quality pre-installs done at the factory.

That would be wonderful. Ubuntu is making my laptop search very stressful. It
is so much fun to use that I don't want to go back to Windows. However, if I
buy a laptop that isn't compatible with Ubuntu then it will be hard or
impossible to switch out the components for compatible ones like I did on my
desktop. The only hassle-free solution is to buy Ubuntu laptops from Dell, but
they currently charge about $150 more for the same hardware with Ubuntu
installed compared to Windows (what happened to the "Windows tax"?).

~~~
wmf
The Windows tax is offset by the crapware subsidy.

~~~
tx
Dell charges $1-2 per crapware install, but sometimes those are free if Dell
feels like they add value. Vista Basic, OEM edition, is probably $50 (I am
guessing about this one). This requires 20-25 cases of infection with useless
shit to offset Microsoft tax.

This still can't explain how come Ubuntu-based machines are more expensive.

I think that Dell simply rides the demand train: they're the only big-name
brand that sells Ubuntu-powered machines (very few know that Lenovo sells
SUSE) and they're enjoying higher profit margins on them.

~~~
Tichy
Maybe it is just the ratio of E="effort to make OS run on Laptop x" to
U="units of laptops x sold". Price =~ E/U.

------
pavelludiq
I don't like apple that much. I like the fact that they are good. Microsoft
spoiled us, we thought that just because its open source its automatically
better than anything else. Apple showed us that open source is just
automatically better than windows, not better than anything else. Its good to
finally have good competition.

------
Prrometheus
>"The challenge for us is to figure out how to deliver something which is
crisp and clean," without sacrificing the community process, he said.

There are multiple architectures for open source projects that run the
spectrum from anarchic to authoritarian. If a founder has a particular
artistic vision that he feels passionate about, nothing is stopping him from
forcing it through and then releasing the source code.

Personally, I love using my Ubuntu desktop. The team has done a great job on
meeting the usability challenge. The days and weeks spent troubleshooting
hardware problems were ugly, horrible, and frustrating (I would love to have
an Ubuntu "Installs for sure" hardware list somewhere), but the Ubuntu user
experience is a delight compared to Windows.

A caveat: I've never used a mac for a significant period of time so I can't
say how it compares to that competition.

~~~
wmf
_If a founder has a particular artistic vision that he feels passionate about,
nothing is stopping him from forcing it through and then releasing the source
code._

Except the fact that he'll receive virtually no contributions from the
community and thus he'll be limited to whatever can be done by himself and his
employees. Also, community-controlled distros have set themselves up as
gatekeepers, so most users never even discover software that the distros don't
like.

I think Shuttleworth has identified the correct problem: We know how to get a
large number of programmers to produce high-quality software (employ them) and
we know how to get a large number of programmers to produce a large amount of
software for free (the bazaar), but we don't know how to convince a large
number of programmers to produce high-quality software for free.

------
jdoliner
I've been using Ubuntu for over a year now first on a T60p laptop, now on a
custom built desktop. The only compatibility issue I've had is the lack of ati
support for Linux, other than that smooth sailing. I use linux simply because
of how powerful it is, it doesn't stand in your way at all. As far as
usability goes I'm a poor judge, everything seems logically placed to me,
although it lacks the unity of MacOs and even to some extent of Windows. The
open source community seems to finally be concentrating on elegant design, so
this might change soon.

------
bprater
It _can not_ happen.

Until you can bring in a visionary dictator like Jobs that everyone channels
their energy through, it is impossible to bring Linux to the level of Apple.

"The challenge for us is to figure out how to deliver something which is crisp
and clean."

Crisp and clean? That's all it takes to match Apple?

A great movie requires a visionary director. Shuttleworth has does some
amazing stuff with Ubuntu, but I think attacking directly at the bow of Apple
is a misguided battle.

~~~
krschultz
Shuttleworth IS the Steve Jobs of Linux. Linus is the poster child for the
technical guy, but Shuttleworth needs to lead the style. However I find him
lacking in specific vision, he says these things are problems, we need to find
solutions, but Ubuntu never provides a revolution. I feel like Ubuntu has
found the annoyances of Linux and fixed many of them, but they aren't
necessarily visionary changes.

~~~
unalone
Because Linux's problem isn't its bugs, or its glitchiness. Its problems
revolve around the design theory that builds it.

That's where Apple wins big-time over the other two. It has a consistent
theory of how to reduce clicks to get effects. From not having a lower bar to
HAVING an upper menu to Spotlight to its Dock, everything is designed to make
things faster for you.

Ubuntu won't ever have this. It can't. Nothing that's designed to be truly
open can. You can't tweak things to the same level of control. You can't
implement multitouch and make programs that RELY on multitouch. You can't put
iTunes controls on the keyboard, or an Eject key. You can't make iChat
integrate with Mail and your Address Book when not everybody will have each of
those programs. It's not possible.

I've used both thoroughly. The level of polish on the one side is VASTLY
superior. Look even at Adium versus Pidgin. They run the same library. But one
takes up far less space, has better-designed themes, runs more smoothly...
because Apple allows for that. It offers big screen resolutions and superior
font support, so you can keep things tiny and out-of-the-way and still
readable. It deals with a modern-day theme that means a focus on
professionalism still works. It knows it can use Growl and the Dock for
notifications, which keeps it much less in-your-face than anything FLASHING
ever would.

You can't get keyboard shortcuts that are as good when you don't know the
keyboard. You can't get software support when you don't know the hardware. You
can't have a superior user interface when people use five hundred different
displays and two thousand different methods of input. (Exaggeration.) Ubuntu
can not win a battle when it can't control the tools used to fight. It can't
control hardware, it can't control software, without betraying its design
theories. Apple can, and so Apple will always win in a fight hands-down.

~~~
nailer
> You can't implement multitouch and make programs that RELY on multitouch.

Yes you can. Make the canvas widget support multitouch - bang, all apps
support multitouch.

> You can't put iTunes controls on the keyboard, or an Eject key.

Multimedia keys and eject both work fine out of the box today.

> You can't make iChat integrate with Mail and your Address Book when not
> everybody will have each of those programs. It's not possible.

Yes it is, and it's used today. Pidgin uses the Evo address book, as do all
Gnome programs. Ubuntu ensures that every desktop indeed has these programs,
__because it controls the platform__.

~~~
unalone
Yeah, it has that, but at the same time this isn't a matter of pure
functionality. This is a matter of getting a consistent polish. And having a
hodge-podge set of applications doesn't do it.

I'm sorry if I misspoke earlier. I know that Gnome uses Evo to tie things
together. It's just that it doesn't GIVE that impression when you use it. Evo
seems, when you turn on the computer, to be a random program thrown in because
it's free. Ditto Pidgin. Ditto OpenOffice and Firefox. It's because Linux has
never had a consistent set of do-everything apps written by one person. And
users notice this. I did. With iChat, I immediately understood the connection.
I did because Address Book is a well-known application. Ditto iChat. Evo
isn't. Pidgin is, but its integration with Evo isn't.

The eject key is supported, yes. But it's not the same as having a key on the
keyboard that does it and NOT a button next to the CD slot. The Mac hardware
is tight. And... no other hardware is. Linux can't copy that, because that
introduces a matter of PAY into things.

You can implement multitouch, but you can't RELY on its being there. And for
me, that's what made Leopard the OS that it is: powerful and tight multitouch.

~~~
Tichy
"And having a hodge-podge set of applications doesn't do it."

Nowhere is it written in stone that a Linux Distribution needs to ship with a
hodge-podge of applications.

~~~
unalone
No, but that means there's at LEAST a two-step program to beating Apple.
First, you need to MAKE a set of applications that aren't hodge-podge; then,
those apps have to be better than Apple's. And call me a fanboy (for some
definitions that would be true), but Apple apps are top-notch and Apple is
never stagnant.

~~~
Tichy
There are already people preferring Linux over Apple, so at the most, it is a
matter of taste. Not that some Linux apps could not be improved, but some
Apple software sucks, too (what is up with the FileManager???).

------
Tichy
Why does open source work better for code than for design (or does it)? I
thought the reason for the good quality of many open source projects is that
people fix the flaws for themselves, and all the fixes accumulate.

Why does it not work the same for design (or does it). Are designers less
prone to fixing flaws in products? Are they just lazy and use Apple stuff?

Personally I can't really see a fundamental difference between an ugly widget
(looks) and an ugly piece of code, they are both bugs?

------
Herring
As War Nerd said, the enemy of your enemy is usually also your enemy. It's
fine to hate the occupiers, but the real enemy is the rival militia.

------
Hexstream
"Linux, Shuttleworth said, must link up with Windows. He stressed his belief
that 'Linux is the platform of the future. But I think it's essential that we
learn how to work with Windows'."

I'm sure Linux developers would be more than willing to link up more with
Windows if it didn't keep getting out of its way to prevent it.

------
hs
it's hard when ubuntu role model is windows, implicitly by promoting it to
convert windows user to linux, explicitly by making some apps look and feel
similar to windows

the role model should be osx ... i'll wait the day when i see tutorials about
'how changing my osx desktop to feel & look like Ubuntu'

