Is Ubuntu Driving Users Away?(datamation.com)
datamation.com
Is Ubuntu Driving Users Away?
http://www.datamation.com/open-source/is-ubuntu-driving-users-away-1.html
51 comments
> I don't know much about their development process and efficiency level so I won't say more.
http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/
http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/
I don't agree. Personally I really like the new UI (Unity), and the improvements that they bring with every version. They really seek to innovate in UI space, and like taking a fresh look at it, something that is seems rare in both open and closed-source OSes.
However, Kubuntu might be an option if you prefer a more traditional UI with a launchbar at the bottom etc.
However, Kubuntu might be an option if you prefer a more traditional UI with a launchbar at the bottom etc.
Gnome-shell user here.
Ubuntu's not for me, mostly because they cannot give me 'vanilla' software easily. They started with smaller changes (the notification patches come to my mind here) and now push their own agenda of a shell.
I'm still having some issues with gnome-shell, but I'm sure they'll be fixed. At least I'm sure that this is software that is maintained by the Gnome guys (I trust their code quality more, again due to the notification patch issues in the past) and - this is the big one - I don't want to use an interface that is distribution dependent.
I can easily use gnome-shell on a variety of different machines. Unity is a Ubuntu only (? Did any other distribution think about including this thing at all? Why would they?) UI and therefor a fail in my open source rule book.
Ubuntu's not for me, mostly because they cannot give me 'vanilla' software easily. They started with smaller changes (the notification patches come to my mind here) and now push their own agenda of a shell.
I'm still having some issues with gnome-shell, but I'm sure they'll be fixed. At least I'm sure that this is software that is maintained by the Gnome guys (I trust their code quality more, again due to the notification patch issues in the past) and - this is the big one - I don't want to use an interface that is distribution dependent.
I can easily use gnome-shell on a variety of different machines. Unity is a Ubuntu only (? Did any other distribution think about including this thing at all? Why would they?) UI and therefor a fail in my open source rule book.
You always have the option to use classic gnome with Ubuntu. That's what I use. I am not particularly thrilled with the idea of taking a netbook interface and slapping it on regular users. I tried it, didn't like it,switched back to classic.
You can always opt for traditional Gnome (Shell will be available on 11.10). It's a one-time change (you choose it on login) and works well. You'll never have to look at Unity again.
And, of course, you can run Debian or Fedora or any other distro you want.
And, of course, you can run Debian or Fedora or any other distro you want.
I've been using Ubuntu on all my home computers since 8.04, and generally I'm quite happy. But I do sometimes feel Ubuntu does tend to spend a lot of effort on things that don't really match my priorities. The XKCD comic springs to mind: http://xkcd.com/619/ (although in this case it is a new form of 3D desktop effects to replace the previous effects.. sigh.)
My problem with newer Ubuntu was not with Unity itself, but with lesser ability to configure anything decently (for example, move the launcher panel). I'd have to literally hack my way through the code and config files, and I didn't like it.
Once upon a time I was a Gentoo guy. I've ran wmii (and later moved to xmonad) and had my own portage overlay with quite a lot of near-to-the-bleeding-edge versions and personalization patches to various software. Then I've graduated, got a job and had significantly less time to maintain patches and fiddle around with customizations and compile software. So I've moved to Ubuntu, where everything worked almost "out of the box", and I've mostly had to click around the GUI or edit some simple config files to make the system suit my tastes.
With the relatively recent changes, I had a feeling that the system had become less "open", harder to customize. So, as a first step, I've moved to Kubuntu (but don't really like it due to various KDE glitches).
I want a distro, with a recent packages, that would decently work out-of-the-box, but doesn't hide everything deep under the hood. Ubuntu started to lack that, so I've moved a bit (to Kubuntu) and now lazily looking for the alternatives.
Once upon a time I was a Gentoo guy. I've ran wmii (and later moved to xmonad) and had my own portage overlay with quite a lot of near-to-the-bleeding-edge versions and personalization patches to various software. Then I've graduated, got a job and had significantly less time to maintain patches and fiddle around with customizations and compile software. So I've moved to Ubuntu, where everything worked almost "out of the box", and I've mostly had to click around the GUI or edit some simple config files to make the system suit my tastes.
With the relatively recent changes, I had a feeling that the system had become less "open", harder to customize. So, as a first step, I've moved to Kubuntu (but don't really like it due to various KDE glitches).
I want a distro, with a recent packages, that would decently work out-of-the-box, but doesn't hide everything deep under the hood. Ubuntu started to lack that, so I've moved a bit (to Kubuntu) and now lazily looking for the alternatives.
They haven't driven me away - I like Unity, it's not perfect, but it works well. I find that Unity lets me get on with my work, and provides access to every thing I need to do so in a fairly logical, economical way.
There are always sacrifices that need to be made when working with Linux - but the advantages out way the disadvantages for me. I expect to have to spend time configuring my system because I have freedom to choose the what runs on my system and how I choose to use it.
Change is uncomfortable - but unless it occurs incrementally, any open source OS is going to stagnate.
When all other competing closed source operating systems are stretching the paradigms they operate within, this kind of stagnation would mean that Ubuntu would be left behind. Ubuntu needs to innovate if it's going to remain useful and relevant.
Perhaps part of the problem was that Ubuntu had been tied to Gnome for so long. It seems to me that in order to address this, the current period of development is less of an increment - and more of a leap - than it comfortably should have been.
There are always sacrifices that need to be made when working with Linux - but the advantages out way the disadvantages for me. I expect to have to spend time configuring my system because I have freedom to choose the what runs on my system and how I choose to use it.
Change is uncomfortable - but unless it occurs incrementally, any open source OS is going to stagnate.
When all other competing closed source operating systems are stretching the paradigms they operate within, this kind of stagnation would mean that Ubuntu would be left behind. Ubuntu needs to innovate if it's going to remain useful and relevant.
Perhaps part of the problem was that Ubuntu had been tied to Gnome for so long. It seems to me that in order to address this, the current period of development is less of an increment - and more of a leap - than it comfortably should have been.
> you can install a Gnome classic fall back option. This provides users with the ability to enjoy a classic Gnome experience. It's unfortunate, however, that I had to do multiple search engine queries just to find out if this was even a possibility. Despite the time spent searching, the fact is that it's possible. Thanks to the Ubuntu team pushing Unity adoption, I'm 99% positive you'll never hear about this option through official Ubuntu channels.
because that doesn't make much sense. Gnome went 3.x and you should naturally expect a decline in popularity of the "old" version, there is no reason to promote this fallback unless someone forks Gnome 2.x as Linus suggested, which is unlikely to happen. the alternative is switch to another DE such as XFCE (lxde, kde), or how to say it by Ubuntu terms - install Xubuntu (lubuntu, kubuntu).
because that doesn't make much sense. Gnome went 3.x and you should naturally expect a decline in popularity of the "old" version, there is no reason to promote this fallback unless someone forks Gnome 2.x as Linus suggested, which is unlikely to happen. the alternative is switch to another DE such as XFCE (lxde, kde), or how to say it by Ubuntu terms - install Xubuntu (lubuntu, kubuntu).
I recently installed 10.10 because 10.04 does not work with Unity.
The distro tries to use the nvidia open source drivers and it conflicts with the only that fully works and is needed. I had to blacklist nouveau for it to display X.
Now that I can use Unity, it is Alpha software, not even beta, the main launcher has icons witch do not display text to know what they are for, like the stupid fullscreen one that I though was like the apple resize, but it didn't work, until I finally realize that you need to click on it like an normal icon, not drag it(why then you put it in the corner instead of the main menu?)
The file manager is ugly without borders and full screen while put itself behind the icon launcher.
Search does not work either, it can't find my pictures or music or books unless I use the "official" folders for it I suppose(they do not find it right now).
Alt-F2 and 3d cube does not work either.
They copied mac without the design and aesthetics(and talent) that mac designers have.
Wait for X to wayland transition to come to see new bugs coming that makes it hard for me to recommend linux to anyone for two years.
Don't get me wrong, I love linux and I have been tweaking and loosing so much of my time trying to make linux work since 12 years ago, it was funny then. I don't use it in my main machine anymore, I use mac on it as it just works.
The distro tries to use the nvidia open source drivers and it conflicts with the only that fully works and is needed. I had to blacklist nouveau for it to display X.
Now that I can use Unity, it is Alpha software, not even beta, the main launcher has icons witch do not display text to know what they are for, like the stupid fullscreen one that I though was like the apple resize, but it didn't work, until I finally realize that you need to click on it like an normal icon, not drag it(why then you put it in the corner instead of the main menu?)
The file manager is ugly without borders and full screen while put itself behind the icon launcher.
Search does not work either, it can't find my pictures or music or books unless I use the "official" folders for it I suppose(they do not find it right now).
Alt-F2 and 3d cube does not work either.
They copied mac without the design and aesthetics(and talent) that mac designers have.
Wait for X to wayland transition to come to see new bugs coming that makes it hard for me to recommend linux to anyone for two years.
Don't get me wrong, I love linux and I have been tweaking and loosing so much of my time trying to make linux work since 12 years ago, it was funny then. I don't use it in my main machine anymore, I use mac on it as it just works.
> I recently installed 10.10 because 10.04 does not work with Unity.
I assume you say 11.10. If not, you should try to use a newer release.
> I had to blacklist nouveau for it to display X.
When someone tells me they have an Nvidia board and ask for help, my first advice is to buy a decent computer and stop supporting manufacturers that don't publish free drivers (or sufficient specs so that driver writers can do their work for them). I have no respect for manufacturers like them. Seriously, stop complaining and support manufacturers that care about open source.
> Now that I can use Unity, it is Alpha software
Ubuntu gets unstable when major upgrades are done. Unity is receiving a huge one right now and some turbulences are to be expected.
> The file manager is ugly without borders
It's been acknowledged. Something that didn't work out as expected and they had to go back to older pieces for a while.
> They copied mac without the design and aesthetics(and talent) that mac designers have.
I have a Mac to the left of this machine and I can't see much similarity except the use of the menu on the top of the screen, which makes a lot of sense if your screen is small and much less if you have multiple big ones (much like Macs) and the window buttons to the left, which makes the transition from Macs much easier (and punishes Windows users, but, by now and after Vista, those seem to be used to if, if not anxious for some more abuse (Metro on Win8, anyone?). I'm not sure if Gnome 3 has the same menu, but it's a huge departure from the Gnome desktop we have been using since the early 2000's.
> Wait for X to wayland transition to come to see new bugs coming that makes it hard for me to recommend linux to anyone for two years.
I'm actually anxious to get wayland available. X has served us well for the past 20 or so years, but it's time to go forward. New bugs will manifest themselves and be corrected. In the meantime, I bet you'll still be able to use X, specially with hardware whose manufacturers will take years to come up with new drivers.
I assume you say 11.10. If not, you should try to use a newer release.
> I had to blacklist nouveau for it to display X.
When someone tells me they have an Nvidia board and ask for help, my first advice is to buy a decent computer and stop supporting manufacturers that don't publish free drivers (or sufficient specs so that driver writers can do their work for them). I have no respect for manufacturers like them. Seriously, stop complaining and support manufacturers that care about open source.
> Now that I can use Unity, it is Alpha software
Ubuntu gets unstable when major upgrades are done. Unity is receiving a huge one right now and some turbulences are to be expected.
> The file manager is ugly without borders
It's been acknowledged. Something that didn't work out as expected and they had to go back to older pieces for a while.
> They copied mac without the design and aesthetics(and talent) that mac designers have.
I have a Mac to the left of this machine and I can't see much similarity except the use of the menu on the top of the screen, which makes a lot of sense if your screen is small and much less if you have multiple big ones (much like Macs) and the window buttons to the left, which makes the transition from Macs much easier (and punishes Windows users, but, by now and after Vista, those seem to be used to if, if not anxious for some more abuse (Metro on Win8, anyone?). I'm not sure if Gnome 3 has the same menu, but it's a huge departure from the Gnome desktop we have been using since the early 2000's.
> Wait for X to wayland transition to come to see new bugs coming that makes it hard for me to recommend linux to anyone for two years.
I'm actually anxious to get wayland available. X has served us well for the past 20 or so years, but it's time to go forward. New bugs will manifest themselves and be corrected. In the meantime, I bet you'll still be able to use X, specially with hardware whose manufacturers will take years to come up with new drivers.
"When someone tells me they have an Nvidia board and ask for help, my first advice is to buy a decent computer..."
Wow. Do you find that many people keep listening to you after this or is this just a strategy to free your time of annoying "people"? The *nix community is generally quite friendly, but it doesn't grow faster because of statements like this. Sure, maybe it's a valid opinion but hell, at least explain why they should care!
Wow. Do you find that many people keep listening to you after this or is this just a strategy to free your time of annoying "people"? The *nix community is generally quite friendly, but it doesn't grow faster because of statements like this. Sure, maybe it's a valid opinion but hell, at least explain why they should care!
> Do you find that many people keep listening to you after this or is this just a strategy to free your time of annoying "people"?
Works both ways. It's good advice for one, because you really shouldn't support hardware makers that really don't care about you or the software you run. It also helps by making the more annoying people who can't be bothered to read the supported hardware list, yet ask for free support and complain driver developers are one or two generations behind Nvidia (or ATI's) employees with access to confidential information, go away.
BTW, I have a T-shirt that says "no, I won't fix your computer" too.
> The *nix community is generally quite friendly
Indeed it is. Sometimes a friend is someone who says stuff you need to hear, even if you don't like to hear it.
If you really care about your Nvidia board, please, by all means, learn everything you can about it, about driver development and help the people who give you their time for free.
Works both ways. It's good advice for one, because you really shouldn't support hardware makers that really don't care about you or the software you run. It also helps by making the more annoying people who can't be bothered to read the supported hardware list, yet ask for free support and complain driver developers are one or two generations behind Nvidia (or ATI's) employees with access to confidential information, go away.
BTW, I have a T-shirt that says "no, I won't fix your computer" too.
> The *nix community is generally quite friendly
Indeed it is. Sometimes a friend is someone who says stuff you need to hear, even if you don't like to hear it.
If you really care about your Nvidia board, please, by all means, learn everything you can about it, about driver development and help the people who give you their time for free.
Okay. Which graphic card manufacturer would you recommend?
Which of your recommended solutions perform decent enough if you happen to want decent graphic performance as well. Think dual booting or using Wine to play even 1-2 year old games?
Was the previous release of Ubuntu working with the exact same hardware, but a new version pushed a free graphic driver that didn't work well enough? It seemed like that to me, so why are you blaming the hardware vendor _for this case_?
In an ideal world you'd be right. I support the ideology you're trying to spread. But it's totally impractical for a large number of people. Even if you don't care about gaming, chances are you got a PC off the shelf. With either a card from NVidia or AMD/ATI. Because you want to install Linux on a machine for your brother, mum, girlfriend - or that old box that is just available.
Given the huge flaws with the 'bad luck with your hardware' attitude you sound like the typical zealot. Don't do that.
Which of your recommended solutions perform decent enough if you happen to want decent graphic performance as well. Think dual booting or using Wine to play even 1-2 year old games?
Was the previous release of Ubuntu working with the exact same hardware, but a new version pushed a free graphic driver that didn't work well enough? It seemed like that to me, so why are you blaming the hardware vendor _for this case_?
In an ideal world you'd be right. I support the ideology you're trying to spread. But it's totally impractical for a large number of people. Even if you don't care about gaming, chances are you got a PC off the shelf. With either a card from NVidia or AMD/ATI. Because you want to install Linux on a machine for your brother, mum, girlfriend - or that old box that is just available.
Given the huge flaws with the 'bad luck with your hardware' attitude you sound like the typical zealot. Don't do that.
> Okay. Which graphic card manufacturer would you recommend?
I have had nothing but good experiences with Intel graphics hardware. Windows are wobbly and translucent, performance is good enough.
> Which of your recommended solutions perform decent enough if you happen to want decent graphic performance as well.
A PlayStation 3 or an XBox 360. They are usually connected to larger screens too and you can watch TV on them, as well as play from the couch. That's unbeatable.
> a new version pushed a free graphic driver that didn't work well enough?
... with your specific hardware because it was never properly documented by its manufacturer (who really doesn't care about you) and the distro maintainers probably didn't like to ship a proprietary driver in the first place and switched to a free (remember, freedom is a good thing) one as soon as it worked well enough on the hardware they felt was common enough (tough luck yours wasn't on the list). You can probably install the proprietary driver yourself.
I have had nothing but good experiences with Intel graphics hardware. Windows are wobbly and translucent, performance is good enough.
> Which of your recommended solutions perform decent enough if you happen to want decent graphic performance as well.
A PlayStation 3 or an XBox 360. They are usually connected to larger screens too and you can watch TV on them, as well as play from the couch. That's unbeatable.
> a new version pushed a free graphic driver that didn't work well enough?
... with your specific hardware because it was never properly documented by its manufacturer (who really doesn't care about you) and the distro maintainers probably didn't like to ship a proprietary driver in the first place and switched to a free (remember, freedom is a good thing) one as soon as it worked well enough on the hardware they felt was common enough (tough luck yours wasn't on the list). You can probably install the proprietary driver yourself.
First: To state the obvious, I'm not the same guy as the guy with this upgrading troubles.
Second: You still sound like a zealot if you talk in absolutes and keep your condescending tone.
So I should buy a console and a big TV (I have neither)? And that idea (buying a completely closed platform like a PS3/XBox 360) doesn't violate your grand plan of bringing freedom and open specifications to everyone?
You silently ignored my 'what about existing machines?' point. It seems those are out of luck as well, so we're finally arriving in a world where you suggest to buy specific hardware for running Linux. Like we had to do, 10 years ago.
How can you write arguments like 'the manufacturer doesn't care about you' and continue with 'the distribution maintainers probably didn't like to include the proprietary driver' and 'tough luck if your machine won't work now' (paraphrased)? If the end user is my aunt, where's the end-user visible difference between 'Nvidia doesn't care about her' or 'Ubuntu doesn't care about her, because that off-the-shelf machine has a graphic card from one of the two big manufactures on the market'?
I stick to my point here: What the original author experienced was a regression in the distribution. The reasons for bad (open, free/libre) hardware support, while correct and sad at the same time, don't matter here. You saw 'had to blacklist nuveau' and jumped on it.
It worked first, it broke after an update -> Ubuntu fail. NVidia hate might be a pet peeve of yours, but is only tangentially related to the experience described above.
(Disclaimer: I don't have a graphic card from NVidia, nor do I run Ubuntu on any machine of mine. I've got no options of NVidia nor do I want to diminish the work of the Ubuntu maintainers, although I have to admit that I stopped being a member of the 'free or not all all' crowd quite some time ago)
Second: You still sound like a zealot if you talk in absolutes and keep your condescending tone.
So I should buy a console and a big TV (I have neither)? And that idea (buying a completely closed platform like a PS3/XBox 360) doesn't violate your grand plan of bringing freedom and open specifications to everyone?
You silently ignored my 'what about existing machines?' point. It seems those are out of luck as well, so we're finally arriving in a world where you suggest to buy specific hardware for running Linux. Like we had to do, 10 years ago.
How can you write arguments like 'the manufacturer doesn't care about you' and continue with 'the distribution maintainers probably didn't like to include the proprietary driver' and 'tough luck if your machine won't work now' (paraphrased)? If the end user is my aunt, where's the end-user visible difference between 'Nvidia doesn't care about her' or 'Ubuntu doesn't care about her, because that off-the-shelf machine has a graphic card from one of the two big manufactures on the market'?
I stick to my point here: What the original author experienced was a regression in the distribution. The reasons for bad (open, free/libre) hardware support, while correct and sad at the same time, don't matter here. You saw 'had to blacklist nuveau' and jumped on it.
It worked first, it broke after an update -> Ubuntu fail. NVidia hate might be a pet peeve of yours, but is only tangentially related to the experience described above.
(Disclaimer: I don't have a graphic card from NVidia, nor do I run Ubuntu on any machine of mine. I've got no options of NVidia nor do I want to diminish the work of the Ubuntu maintainers, although I have to admit that I stopped being a member of the 'free or not all all' crowd quite some time ago)
"When someone tells me they have an Nvidia board and ask for help, my first advice is to buy a decent computer and stop supporting manufacturers that don't publish free drivers (or sufficient specs so that driver writers can do their work for them). I have no respect for manufacturers like them. Seriously, stop complaining and support manufacturers that care about open source."
Nvidia might not supply an open source driver - but they do supply a well functioning driver which is updated regularly. This is a god-send.
Last time I checked, ATI linux diver support was nowhere near as good.
Choosing to provide users with an inferior open-source driver, because principles dictate it's the 'only' choice, is short-sighted IMO.
Nvidia might not supply an open source driver - but they do supply a well functioning driver which is updated regularly. This is a god-send.
Last time I checked, ATI linux diver support was nowhere near as good.
Choosing to provide users with an inferior open-source driver, because principles dictate it's the 'only' choice, is short-sighted IMO.
> This is a god-send.
That's the problem. I am an atheist. I don't like generous offers of proprietary software.
> Last time I checked, ATI linux diver support was nowhere near as good.
Agreed. That's why I don't recommend ATI either. Last time I checked, they provided proprietary drivers that were also very buggy. Nvidia, at least, provides proprietary drivers that mostly work.
> Choosing to provide users with an inferior open-source driver, because principles dictate it's the 'only' choice, is short-sighted IMO.
I believe the free driver works well on some common hardware. The proper procedure in your case is to download and install the proprietary driver yourself.
Again, you should be voting with your dollars, not complaining about the freedoms you receive.
That's the problem. I am an atheist. I don't like generous offers of proprietary software.
> Last time I checked, ATI linux diver support was nowhere near as good.
Agreed. That's why I don't recommend ATI either. Last time I checked, they provided proprietary drivers that were also very buggy. Nvidia, at least, provides proprietary drivers that mostly work.
> Choosing to provide users with an inferior open-source driver, because principles dictate it's the 'only' choice, is short-sighted IMO.
I believe the free driver works well on some common hardware. The proper procedure in your case is to download and install the proprietary driver yourself.
Again, you should be voting with your dollars, not complaining about the freedoms you receive.
I've had nothing but annoyance from Ubuntu. One week printing works, update.... now it doesn't. One week the wacom tablet works, update now it doesn't. The list goes on an on, small failings week after week.
Nothing fails completely. The printing just stalled on large images, the wacom pressure sensitivity stopped working. It all smells of lack of in depth testing before release.
Luckily it's not my workhorse machine.
Nothing fails completely. The printing just stalled on large images, the wacom pressure sensitivity stopped working. It all smells of lack of in depth testing before release.
Luckily it's not my workhorse machine.
They haven't driven me away but they have nullified the advantage they had of being the Linux install I could count on to put on a new desktop/laptop machine and have it basically Just Work.
Now I have to undo the damage of the silly UI after the install. I still tend to pick Ubuntu out of habit, but one more iffy release and that will probably change.
Now I have to undo the damage of the silly UI after the install. I still tend to pick Ubuntu out of habit, but one more iffy release and that will probably change.
> Is Ubuntu Driving Users Away?
It drow me away for sure.
The main reason I run Unix is the freedom it gives me to make my system the way I like it. For me Unix=freedom to customize. Considering that, the direction they've took at Cannonical is absurd. With each new release it's harder and harder to customize your system. If you want to configure it you have to hack it. Today, it's easier to customize Windows than it is to customize Ubuntu.
In the last few months I've played with Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Mint LXDE, Debian, OpenBSD, Arch, and ArchBang. I'm running ArchBang now and I love it!
P.S. I would have stayed with OpenBSD if it had a better support for flash. Flash on Linux sucks, but on OpenBSD it blows. Other than that, I was really impressed with it, installation is fast, it runs fast, it's stable, and it's secure, but you knew that already :)
It drow me away for sure.
The main reason I run Unix is the freedom it gives me to make my system the way I like it. For me Unix=freedom to customize. Considering that, the direction they've took at Cannonical is absurd. With each new release it's harder and harder to customize your system. If you want to configure it you have to hack it. Today, it's easier to customize Windows than it is to customize Ubuntu.
In the last few months I've played with Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Mint LXDE, Debian, OpenBSD, Arch, and ArchBang. I'm running ArchBang now and I love it!
P.S. I would have stayed with OpenBSD if it had a better support for flash. Flash on Linux sucks, but on OpenBSD it blows. Other than that, I was really impressed with it, installation is fast, it runs fast, it's stable, and it's secure, but you knew that already :)
If you want to customize everything on your computer you want Arch. It gives you a barebones boilerplate installation and leaves everything else up to you. Did I mention Arch is awesome?
Canonical have always said that they're aiming for a general user product, not power or niche users. There really isn't a distro for that kind of user at the moment, but there are plenty for power users.
I know that and I respect it. What I don't know is why are they investing so much time in making it impossible to customize Ubuntu? What it has to do with their mission? Is it impossible to build a system with good defaults so that general population can use it with no configuration requiered, and let more advanced users pimp it up the way they want it.
The Unity developers had been answering questions on redit some time ago (http://gd.is/dgzY) and the majority of people were complaining about it only to find out that the developers have no authority to implement some basic conf tool.
The Unity developers had been answering questions on redit some time ago (http://gd.is/dgzY) and the majority of people were complaining about it only to find out that the developers have no authority to implement some basic conf tool.
I still use Ubuntu because all the hardware works on my laptop. Changing UI's is easy, changing OS's is less so.
I heartily recommend XFCE with Nautilus. Simple and works like a charm for quickly loading and switching applications, which is essentially all a desktop environment needs to do.
I heartily recommend XFCE with Nautilus. Simple and works like a charm for quickly loading and switching applications, which is essentially all a desktop environment needs to do.
Well, there are some of us who don't want to be guinea pigs for UI testing every 6 months so we're switching to something more stable.
For me, Mint has been a good option - I retain the repositories without the silly GUI change and half-broken software stuff.
For me, Mint has been a good option - I retain the repositories without the silly GUI change and half-broken software stuff.
I also hate it, plus I think everyone would be better off if Canonical helped to improve Gnome or KDE not waste developers and users time with such experimental time
The latest versions of Ubuntu are always meant to be beta-ish. You want the 10.04 LTS version if stability is key for you.
Am I the only one who tried Unity, decided they didn't like it, clicked "Ubuntu classic" in the next login and went on with their lives?
It looks like it's easier to write a blog post complaining than to select Gnome in that damn combo box...
It looks like it's easier to write a blog post complaining than to select Gnome in that damn combo box...
Come on. Unity is not that bad. And with Gnome 3, I fear this will no longer be an option. Between Shell and Unity... Tough choice, but I'll stick to Unity. I like the pixels it frees up. I have paid for them.
And think of the poor Windows 8 users who will be confronted with a Metro UI on boot. Think of all the moms who will desperately call their children (on the phone, because they'll never be able to find Microsoft Live Skype Premium by themselves)
And think of the poor Windows 8 users who will be confronted with a Metro UI on boot. Think of all the moms who will desperately call their children (on the phone, because they'll never be able to find Microsoft Live Skype Premium by themselves)
I didn't say I hate Unity, I just liked Gnome better. I could live with Unity, or I could use another manager altogether...
Actually, Unity might be nice, I just like my Compiz shortcuts (center window et al).
Actually, Unity might be nice, I just like my Compiz shortcuts (center window et al).
This is a really good question: "Is Unity the best place to invest man-hours with extended development right now?"
It's very hard to balance the needs of the commercial department and the development department.
It's very hard to balance the needs of the commercial department and the development department.
It's a really weird question in fact. How much do you need to change a program that works in a traditional Gnome desktop (even ignoring the fact Gnome has moved on too) so that it integrates seamlessly with Unity?
My best guess is "nothing at all". Am I that wrong?
Are the people complaining about investing man-hours in extender development really developing desktop apps for Gnome/Unity?
My best guess is "nothing at all". Am I that wrong?
Are the people complaining about investing man-hours in extender development really developing desktop apps for Gnome/Unity?
On that revamped UI question (Unity).
Ubuntu was pretty much forced into it, when they became less than enthusiastic about Gnome3 (gnome-shell).
A sentiment which I entirely shared. Then, at least.
Ubuntu was pretty much forced into it, when they became less than enthusiastic about Gnome3 (gnome-shell).
A sentiment which I entirely shared. Then, at least.
Long before Unity, Ubuntu began to frustrate me for two reasons. Gratuitous changes in the default apps and failure to separate concerns.
I switched to Arch and I'm much happier with it.
I switched to Arch and I'm much happier with it.
Why do successful platforms overhaul established successful user interfaces? Gnome2 could have used some polish but the building blocks were right. Windows 2000 was fine. These changes are value destruction. The world would be a better place had the developers had gone on holiday instead of making overhauls. Were the gnome changes driven by focus groups?
Because it's more fun to develop a new codebase using cool new tools and technologies than maintain an old one and try to hack new technology into it. Not that that makes it right.
> Not that that makes it right.
But it is. Every once and then you should start off a clean slate. You should throw away old code, even if it works, and rewrite it in better ways than possible when it was originally written. You have to incorporate what you learned into it.
The fact Windows probably contains code written for release 2.x is a weakness, not a strength.
But it is. Every once and then you should start off a clean slate. You should throw away old code, even if it works, and rewrite it in better ways than possible when it was originally written. You have to incorporate what you learned into it.
The fact Windows probably contains code written for release 2.x is a weakness, not a strength.
> The fact Windows probably contains code written
> for release 2.x is a weakness, not a strength.
Code that is battled-tested by millions of hours of runtime is extremely valuable. Consider protocol code. Or processor-optimised assembly language that has backwards compatibility and which hardware manufacturers have developed against.
Microsoft is a great example of a company that has been far too ready to rewrite. They could have had happier consumers for far less effort, and be in a better strategic position now if they'd followed a conservative OS strategy and tried to preserve NT and leveraged virtualisation to get the feature and security advances they needed. There was precedent for this (IBM VM) and they had experience with that kind of thing with their OS/2 v2 exposure (win32s API ran on OS/2 v2, and OS/2 1.x stuff ran on NT4), which isn't to say they would have needed to exactly mirror either of those approaches.
Even with near-infinite resources at their disposal they have struggled with the pace of change they've put Windows through, and significantly alienated the customer base in the process.
There is a huge difference between code that's been optimized for decades and code that's plain old and there just because nobody ever touched it again.
Even code like IBM's VM should be updated when new processors appear (zSeries CPUs get updated from time to time).
As for code that's there just because it's old (and not because it has been carefully maintained for decades), I advise you to look into it. You probably learned something in the past decade that can improve it.
Even code like IBM's VM should be updated when new processors appear (zSeries CPUs get updated from time to time).
As for code that's there just because it's old (and not because it has been carefully maintained for decades), I advise you to look into it. You probably learned something in the past decade that can improve it.
if it works and have stuff built against it, why would you touch it again?
To improve it. Even IBM's VM could be improved (and was). The trick is trying not to break interfaces.
But even that is something you should do from time to time. I don't think many current versions of Windows support Win16 software.
But even that is something you should do from time to time. I don't think many current versions of Windows support Win16 software.
[deleted]
I recently switched to Debian Stable with non-free and backports repositories. The default desktop is Gnome 2.30.2 and installs by default all the similar software Ubuntu used to install like Openoffice, transmission, etc. My desktop is even able to resume and suspend (Ubuntu stopped to do it with the version 9.04)
> My desktop is even able to resume and suspend (Ubuntu stopped to do it with the version 9.04)
Well... works here, flawlessly (has been, since 6.04, across five different computers)
Well... works here, flawlessly (has been, since 6.04, across five different computers)
Yes it is. It has driven me away. It's so damn inconsistent and chock full of bugs, even in the LTS releases. Not only that, Launchpad is about as likely to get a fix released as Microsoft Connect is. Fedora rawhide is more stable!
Bar one stubborn piece of equipment hanging on 10.04LTS, I've entirely switched to Debian which can actually be trusted, has a decent release QA and doesn't change every two seconds.
Bar one stubborn piece of equipment hanging on 10.04LTS, I've entirely switched to Debian which can actually be trusted, has a decent release QA and doesn't change every two seconds.
On Unity: The fact is, Canonical cannot possibly satisfy every single Ubuntu user with a single interface. They will alienate some users and acquire others with their changes. In the end, I think Unity is a good development for the Linux community as a whole as it will probably attract many users to Linux who wouldn't normally have been. The ones who really know what they want will find a way to get around it one way or another (that is a sort of universal constant in geeks).
I can also see why they are unwilling to provide a simple option to allow both Unity and GNOME2 (in future releases I mean). Having a single codebase for a desktop environment will probably allow them to focus on real usability issues rather than compatibility ones (and whether the usability suits us hardcore geeks or not, I suspect Canonical does usability testing on these interfaces before introducing major changes. Can anyone corroborate this?). Overall, I think it's good. I have friends who would never have touched Linux with a 10 foot pole who are now loving Ubuntu with Unity (and more importantly, the ideas and community behind it).
On general stability: I think the Ubuntu team is doing a better job than most can possibly hope for. There are bugs and they will take time to fix. I suspect the priorities of these bugs is different for Ubuntu developers and for us here on HN, thus the complaints. I don't know much about their development process and efficiency level so I won't say more.