Ubuntu’s move to Unity is the best thing that ever happened to Linux(kumailht.com)
kumailht.com
Ubuntu’s move to Unity is the best thing that ever happened to Linux
http://kumailht.com/2011/11/ubuntus-move-to-unity-is-the-best-thing-that-ever-happened-to-linux/
111 comments
Thirded,
Geeks are coding away at some application feature, managing servers, updating designs, watching some TV show, browsing the web, discussing project goals over skype with team members and other mundane things – all this on a slow day.
I disagree. I have three windows open. Google Chrome (with, unfortunately for my productivity, Hacker News open), Emacs, and a Gnome Terminal (I X forward my Emacs session from my home machine to my work machine).
Even if I did have skype open rather than an IRC session (in ERC/irssi), I don't see how Unity is better or worse than the normal Gnome set-up. Alt-Tab still works. Same goes for other applications that are distracting me from my editor.
What part of alt-tabing and application launching does Unity do so terribly compared to the old Gnome interface + Gnome-Do (I hated the menus, I tab-complete in the terminal, why can't I tab-complete in my application launcher?).
Geeks are coding away at some application feature, managing servers, updating designs, watching some TV show, browsing the web, discussing project goals over skype with team members and other mundane things – all this on a slow day.
I disagree. I have three windows open. Google Chrome (with, unfortunately for my productivity, Hacker News open), Emacs, and a Gnome Terminal (I X forward my Emacs session from my home machine to my work machine).
Even if I did have skype open rather than an IRC session (in ERC/irssi), I don't see how Unity is better or worse than the normal Gnome set-up. Alt-Tab still works. Same goes for other applications that are distracting me from my editor.
What part of alt-tabing and application launching does Unity do so terribly compared to the old Gnome interface + Gnome-Do (I hated the menus, I tab-complete in the terminal, why can't I tab-complete in my application launcher?).
I typically have Chromium, a urxvt running tmux with 5-15 "windows" (a couple of which go to remote machines), two workspaces of Emacs, and half a dozen open pdfs of journal articles that I may be looking back at. When debugging parallel jobs, I may have a few more tmux instances. I find that Xmonad offers the most efficient window management in this scenario. I currently run it with Gnome3 in legacy mode because all I want from Gnome is the toolbar and session management.
I don't think the debate is between xmonad and some WM. The debate is between Ubuntu's Gnome set-up before Unity and Ubuntu's set-up with Unity.
Ubuntu's Gnome set-up was never been like xmonad or even a tiling window manager and neither is Unity. It seems to me that, as far as you're concerned, Ubuntu's default set-up sucks just as much as it always has.
edit: fixed mis-wording in second paragraph.
Ubuntu's Gnome set-up was never been like xmonad or even a tiling window manager and neither is Unity. It seems to me that, as far as you're concerned, Ubuntu's default set-up sucks just as much as it always has.
edit: fixed mis-wording in second paragraph.
Alt-tab works, but alt-shift-tab does not - or at least did not work for me when I upgraded. Not wanting to waste time looking for a workaround, I just reverted to my backup and forgot about Unity.
Alt-shift-tab cycles backwards through the window stack for me. What did you want it to do that it is not?
With Unity you can press Win+1, Win+2 ... Win+N to directly jump to an specific open window. Much faster than alt+tab.
After I discovered this feature/shortcut I started not caring anymore about Unity bugs. Navigating applications this way is much faster than alt+tabbing.
Another useful shortcut is alt+` (backtick). It cycles through open windows of the same application. If you have 10 PDFs open, you can cycle through them with alt+`.
What Alt-Shift-Tab did?
if we define alt tab as moving forward through windows, alt-shift-tab moves backwards
I kind of solved it with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3280187
In the end, it feels much more natural and "spacial" - rather than having a small desktop with things piled on it, I have a context-dependent desktop.
In the end, it feels much more natural and "spacial" - rather than having a small desktop with things piled on it, I have a context-dependent desktop.
I concur, I'm using a few applications - Yakuake Terminal, Chrome, Thunderbird, Eclipse+viPlugin, Empathy and Skype.
Unity took me a while to get used to, but I've found it to be fantastic and look forward to seeing the production release with Ubuntu 12.04.
Unity took me a while to get used to, but I've found it to be fantastic and look forward to seeing the production release with Ubuntu 12.04.
Well for one example:
I use 2 large monitors to work with and run allot of applications at the same time.
With gnome 2 I can put a seperate taskbar on each monitor and switch quickly between tasks with the keyboard or mouse. I also have another panel with buttons to launch my most common apps. Small amount of mouse movement and 1 click.
With unity I have to drag the mouse right to the far left or my furthest left monitor , possibly scroll through the icons , select the app I want, click it and then I have to select the window I want. Lots of mouse movement and 2-3 clicks.
Another problem I get is when launching a GUI app from a shell script , I load the app but then cannot dock it because it doesn't understand the relationship between the shell script and the app. This means I need seperate icons on my desktop to launch some apps.
With gnome 2 I can put a seperate taskbar on each monitor and switch quickly between tasks with the keyboard or mouse. I also have another panel with buttons to launch my most common apps. Small amount of mouse movement and 1 click.
With unity I have to drag the mouse right to the far left or my furthest left monitor , possibly scroll through the icons , select the app I want, click it and then I have to select the window I want. Lots of mouse movement and 2-3 clicks.
Another problem I get is when launching a GUI app from a shell script , I load the app but then cannot dock it because it doesn't understand the relationship between the shell script and the app. This means I need seperate icons on my desktop to launch some apps.
I use two monitors and I solved this problem by using multiple desktops. Every desktop has one of my "tasks". When I want to see what other window is doing, I move to that given desktop. This way, each desktop has one "context" - Emacs and a development server, a browser and another window to the same development server (screen is your friend), one with various "social" things - IM, Skype, IRC, Twitter - and others with assorted activities (managing servers on Amazon, remote upgrading my mom's computer (Unity is very grandma-friendly) and so on. If I'm ever lost, Super-S brings me everything up in a simple and easy way.
My two problems with Unity: It's too easy to get to get to the launcher when I want to hit the browser's back button and all my Super-related Emacs shortcuts had to be relocated. Now I need a Hyper key.
My two problems with Unity: It's too easy to get to get to the launcher when I want to hit the browser's back button and all my Super-related Emacs shortcuts had to be relocated. Now I need a Hyper key.
This is an approach that could work for sure, but then you need to be disciplined and remember what is open on each desktop. I love the simplicity of just having a list of windows at the bottom of each monitor, requires no memory or keyboard shortcuts to switch between things.
I tend to keep things consistent. The browser is usually on the top-left desktop, emacs on center-top, twitter and pidgin, on lower-left.
I have 2 24 inchers and what I do to get my "set up" in the morning is I have all the applications I need arranged in my launcher:
From top to bottom I have file manager and browser, then all my apps that I need to have open on my launcher, so I just hold down my winkey then hit 3,4,5,6 and my mail, irc, trello, calendar all launch, then I'm done.
From top to bottom I have file manager and browser, then all my apps that I need to have open on my launcher, so I just hold down my winkey then hit 3,4,5,6 and my mail, irc, trello, calendar all launch, then I'm done.
OK. I see how it can be problem with two monitors but aren't shortcuts like (Start+1) helping in this case? While I still see problem with eyes movement. Lastly I'm against idea using multiple monitors so I don't feel competent enough to comment.
Problem with GUI apps from shell script is bug in my opinion but I was not affected by it yet.
Problem with GUI apps from shell script is bug in my opinion but I was not affected by it yet.
I imagine allot of power users do use 2 monitors , especially now that they are so cheap. And I don't just mean developers either, I've seen plenty of estate agents , accountants , lawyers etc using 2 monitors with perhaps a large spreadsheet open on 1 and their email correspondence or web browser open on another.
To be honest I don't know what the Start + 1 shortcut does, so perhaps it would help or perhaps not. If you have to use keyboard shortcuts though I don't really see how this is simpler than the taskbar where I have a clear list of everything I'm doing on the most spacious axis of my monitor.
To be honest I don't know what the Start + 1 shortcut does, so perhaps it would help or perhaps not. If you have to use keyboard shortcuts though I don't really see how this is simpler than the taskbar where I have a clear list of everything I'm doing on the most spacious axis of my monitor.
I use two monitors at work, and I can't imagine using just one. The productivity boost is great.
Even better than 2 monitors is a single 2560x1600 30".
I'd rather take two 24" monitors at 1920x1080 each = 3840x1080 combined. That would give me a similar number of pixels at a significantly lower cost than a single 30" monitor of similar quality.
[deleted]
Count me in. When developing, I usually have no more than three applications opened: GVim, a terminal window and a browser. All of them are easily accessible through Super + 1..3. In addition to that, I can move them around the screen using Ctrl+Alt+Numblock. These features work extremely reliable and fit very well in my workflow.
I agree, I don't understand the hatred for Unity. I've used Linux since Slackware 3.0 or so...
My girl friend, who is an Apple user, was pretty impressed by the user interface after I installed 11.10 on my Thinkpad.
My girl friend, who is an Apple user, was pretty impressed by the user interface after I installed 11.10 on my Thinkpad.
On my work laptop I will typically have around three workspaces (everything about a given task/goal in one space), with around three Safari windows open in each, each with 1-6 tabs and a couple of Inspector sheets; some Finder windows thrown in here and there, a couple of Terminal windows per space (some with split screens or multiple splits open in vim), some Vico windows here and there. iChat, Skype, iTunes, Mail and Things follow me around when I move spaces -- they stay hidden most of the time. I will mostly move around with swipes between spaces, Cmd-Tab between three of the most recent apps, and Cmd-` between a given app's windows (or ^W^W from split to split in Vico). When a window is more than a couple of strokes away I'll tile all of the apps windows, or right-click it in the Dock to choose a window from a menu. When an app is more than a couple of keystrokes away I'll summon Spotlight and just move to it by name (or hold Cmd-Tab and trackpad over it).
Thanks to the SSD I don't ever have to wait, or stop to think what to do next.
I wouldn't call this ideal, but I will call the above _the_minimal_ viable windowing environment control scheme, for what I'm after.
How is it that you're so at peace with that glitchy simpleton? (Or am I over-doing it?)
(edit) formatting
Thanks to the SSD I don't ever have to wait, or stop to think what to do next.
I wouldn't call this ideal, but I will call the above _the_minimal_ viable windowing environment control scheme, for what I'm after.
How is it that you're so at peace with that glitchy simpleton? (Or am I over-doing it?)
(edit) formatting
"I really don't understand what other power users are missing."
With Unity, if I am on a workspace with no terminal, and I click on the terminal to open it, I am warped back to a workspace that already has a terminal open, and I have to open a new window from there, and move it back (with several more clicks) to the workspace I really want to be on. Much different than just clicking on the terminal icon, which worked before.
I'd like unity to work out, and if they could get past the awkwardness of task-switching and workspaces, then I'll go back to it. Maybe it would be best to just treat a new workspace as though there are no applications open at all, and if you want an application on another workspace you have to switch to that workspace first.
Also, it would be nice if I had a way to go directly to, say, the third instance of the terminal that I have open, rather than trying to choose it from a picture.
With Unity, if I am on a workspace with no terminal, and I click on the terminal to open it, I am warped back to a workspace that already has a terminal open, and I have to open a new window from there, and move it back (with several more clicks) to the workspace I really want to be on. Much different than just clicking on the terminal icon, which worked before.
I'd like unity to work out, and if they could get past the awkwardness of task-switching and workspaces, then I'll go back to it. Maybe it would be best to just treat a new workspace as though there are no applications open at all, and if you want an application on another workspace you have to switch to that workspace first.
Also, it would be nice if I had a way to go directly to, say, the third instance of the terminal that I have open, rather than trying to choose it from a picture.
Middle-click the terminal button in the dock.
Middle-click on the terminal icon, or right-click and select "New terminal" to create a new one.
I agree. Especially on my 13" laptop, Unity gives me by far the most screen space of any other desktop environment out there (including OS X), especially vertical.
It has a few bugs, but they're not that big a deal.
It has a few bugs, but they're not that big a deal.
> The non geek will [...] love the gloss that Unity brings to Ubuntu.
I don't know. It seems common sense that "non geeks" (hear, common people) like glossy things. After all, the Miss Universe thing has some success and is pure gloss. But I think it can also be an observation bias, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.
For instance, we check what people like to watch on TV, but what the people are fed with on the TV is already the result of some presupposition over what they like.
Some counter example exist, showing that people do not always like preformatted content, or glossy interface. Two different cases come to mind:
In France, there was a movie called Etre et Avoir, about a teacher in a remote countryside village. No professional actors, no story, just some shots in a school. Who would have bet on it? Is it not obvious that spectators want action, glamour, movie stars? Well in this case it was not true: the movie has been widely successful.
Another case, closer to HN interest: Is not Wikipedia the most successful (rich) content website ever? Who could say without laughing that Wikipedia has a glossy interface?
So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks". They may or may not like Unity. If they do, it could be because it looks "glossy", yes, maybe, but it could also be because it just works, or because it is cheap, or because it is fast, or for some other reason.
I don't know. It seems common sense that "non geeks" (hear, common people) like glossy things. After all, the Miss Universe thing has some success and is pure gloss. But I think it can also be an observation bias, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.
For instance, we check what people like to watch on TV, but what the people are fed with on the TV is already the result of some presupposition over what they like.
Some counter example exist, showing that people do not always like preformatted content, or glossy interface. Two different cases come to mind:
In France, there was a movie called Etre et Avoir, about a teacher in a remote countryside village. No professional actors, no story, just some shots in a school. Who would have bet on it? Is it not obvious that spectators want action, glamour, movie stars? Well in this case it was not true: the movie has been widely successful.
Another case, closer to HN interest: Is not Wikipedia the most successful (rich) content website ever? Who could say without laughing that Wikipedia has a glossy interface?
So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks". They may or may not like Unity. If they do, it could be because it looks "glossy", yes, maybe, but it could also be because it just works, or because it is cheap, or because it is fast, or for some other reason.
I also think that he is mistaking "gloss" with "UX that won't make you want to pull your hair out".
Creating a good experience has more to do with creating some good interface metaphors that look good and work well than to just emulate known platforms like Windows and Mac.
Creating a good experience has more to do with creating some good interface metaphors that look good and work well than to just emulate known platforms like Windows and Mac.
Entirely agree, I think pherhaps when people describe apple products for example as "glossy" or "shiny" a large part of that is because they like the overall experience of the hardware + software but don't know enough Computer / UI jargon to describe exactly why they like it so they pick up on something concrete that they like such as colours and materials.
It's like if you ask somebody why they find a woman attractive they are more likely to talk about her breasts , smile or legs rather than mentioning things like distance between the eyes, nose shape or cheekbone structure.
It's like if you ask somebody why they find a woman attractive they are more likely to talk about her breasts , smile or legs rather than mentioning things like distance between the eyes, nose shape or cheekbone structure.
So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks".
Indeed. And the concept of dividing the world into geeks and non-geeks is flawed to begin with, because non-geek covers so many different kinds of people, like kids, chemistry professors, Belgians, housewives, the mentally retarded, taxi drivers, muslims, the poor, the rich, and on and on. The "average user" doesn't exist (and isn't called Joe).
Indeed. And the concept of dividing the world into geeks and non-geeks is flawed to begin with, because non-geek covers so many different kinds of people, like kids, chemistry professors, Belgians, housewives, the mentally retarded, taxi drivers, muslims, the poor, the rich, and on and on. The "average user" doesn't exist (and isn't called Joe).
I have experienced quite the opposite. A lot of colleagues that were once found of Ubuntu switched in flocks to other distros starting with Ubuntu Maverick.
With Ubuntu 11, friends personally asked me how to switch back to the previous system, or to dump linux completely because the system got too slow with updates. And, sadly, that's true: the experience of the Ubuntu desktop, performance-wise, has degraded to the point of being significantly slower than windows xp or 7.
I have witnessed netbooks (decent netbooks running either android or ubuntu with unity) considered as "crap" by several non-tecnical people talking in the building, simply because they don't work "as expected" and thus being almost unuseable by them.
The way I see it, most people expect a standard windows-like interface. I've long stopped being a "go-to guy for computers" so I don't enter these discussions anymore, but that's very sad for me to realize that Ubuntu had everything two years ago for both technical users and new users, while now people simply flock away.
Even at work, I'm seriously considering to dump Ubuntu LTS on servers due to the increasing (unfixed) issues we have on large systems, mostly due to Ubuntu changes compared to debian and/or ubuntu projects such as upstart. Bugs on launchpad (let alone the crappyness that is launchpad itself) don't get fixed, but are simply "waited for" from upstream (either debian or source author).
I'm disappointed, really. Having the choice of the interface would have been so damn easy.
With Ubuntu 11, friends personally asked me how to switch back to the previous system, or to dump linux completely because the system got too slow with updates. And, sadly, that's true: the experience of the Ubuntu desktop, performance-wise, has degraded to the point of being significantly slower than windows xp or 7.
I have witnessed netbooks (decent netbooks running either android or ubuntu with unity) considered as "crap" by several non-tecnical people talking in the building, simply because they don't work "as expected" and thus being almost unuseable by them.
The way I see it, most people expect a standard windows-like interface. I've long stopped being a "go-to guy for computers" so I don't enter these discussions anymore, but that's very sad for me to realize that Ubuntu had everything two years ago for both technical users and new users, while now people simply flock away.
Even at work, I'm seriously considering to dump Ubuntu LTS on servers due to the increasing (unfixed) issues we have on large systems, mostly due to Ubuntu changes compared to debian and/or ubuntu projects such as upstart. Bugs on launchpad (let alone the crappyness that is launchpad itself) don't get fixed, but are simply "waited for" from upstream (either debian or source author).
I'm disappointed, really. Having the choice of the interface would have been so damn easy.
What makes you think you don't have a choice? I'm running Ubuntu with xmonad, and before that was on xfce; it's super easy to switch. I will probably switch to Debian soon, but that has more to do with Ubuntu pushing nonfree software than Unity.
In theory yes, however alternative desktops are not supported. The choice of desktop is the primary difference between Ubuntu and (say) Debian which doesn't worship any. Not that "support" exists anyway, but there's no point in using Ubuntu if you use a different desktop.
I also agree about your non-free software argument. Plus all the useless, additional services ubuntu is trying to push (Apple-style).
I also agree about your non-free software argument. Plus all the useless, additional services ubuntu is trying to push (Apple-style).
How are other desktops supported less under Ubuntu than they are under Debian? (The "useless, additional services" bit confuses me too, TBH. Could you provide some examples?)
I'm probably a non-geek by HN standards, I primarily use my computer for internet, writing documents, media consumption etc... I have been using Ubuntu for 5 years or so and for my purposes it is "like windows, but better": (Practically) no viruses, no strange bugs, easy to reinstall/upgrade/backup.
Personally I didn't like Unity and the changes at all and I didn't want to bother to learn / get used to it. Which of course is no problem, since Xubuntu works fine for me too.
Where I don't agree with the author is the image of the "average joe". The characterization is possibly correct if you are talking about non-computer literate users ages 40+ or so. But in the age group <25 there are alot of non-geeks that go from InternetExplorer->Firefox/Chrome, MicrosoftOffice->OpenOffice without considering "gloss" at all.
Where I don't agree with the author is the image of the "average joe". The characterization is possibly correct if you are talking about non-computer literate users ages 40+ or so. But in the age group <25 there are alot of non-geeks that go from InternetExplorer->Firefox/Chrome, MicrosoftOffice->OpenOffice without considering "gloss" at all.
Despite the occasional glitches, I've come to like Unity a lot.
Unity is invisible when I'm working. It shows up only when I invoke it with the <super> key. It uses screen real estate very efficiently. It lets me open my most often used apps with only two keystrokes (I've mapped <super><0> to <super><9> to my most used apps). It makes everything else quickly reachable with a few keystrokes via <super><a> and <super><f>. It lets me quickly divide screen real estate among windows with <Ctrl><Alt> and the numeric keypad. The next version (12.04) looks set to add many features specific to multi-display setups.
It's great for people who want their desktop environment to get out of their way and prefer to use keyboard instead of mouse.
Unity is invisible when I'm working. It shows up only when I invoke it with the <super> key. It uses screen real estate very efficiently. It lets me open my most often used apps with only two keystrokes (I've mapped <super><0> to <super><9> to my most used apps). It makes everything else quickly reachable with a few keystrokes via <super><a> and <super><f>. It lets me quickly divide screen real estate among windows with <Ctrl><Alt> and the numeric keypad. The next version (12.04) looks set to add many features specific to multi-display setups.
It's great for people who want their desktop environment to get out of their way and prefer to use keyboard instead of mouse.
There are two reasons why an average person learns computers and uses a particular OS:
* Even if it is not very intuitive, it is universally used (Windows) * Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS)
Linux is currently, IMHO, in the middle. This brings up a lot of issues from an average Joe's perspective: some hardware configurations do not work perfectly (especially laptops), time spent in learning an interface cannot be applied in other environments (like office) and some tools are not intuitively named especially for a beginner (what is GIMP? Evolution?)
Just to be clear, I use Linux everyday and as an advanced user I love the freedom it offers. For the latter reason, I don't prefer Unity. Now, when a beginner uses Unity, they will approach someone like me. But since I dislike the unorthodox UI, I might be able to help her. But I am sure a fellow Unity enthusiast would be more than willing to help.
So my feelings are mixed and not as upbeat as the OP thinks.
* Even if it is not very intuitive, it is universally used (Windows) * Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS)
Linux is currently, IMHO, in the middle. This brings up a lot of issues from an average Joe's perspective: some hardware configurations do not work perfectly (especially laptops), time spent in learning an interface cannot be applied in other environments (like office) and some tools are not intuitively named especially for a beginner (what is GIMP? Evolution?)
Just to be clear, I use Linux everyday and as an advanced user I love the freedom it offers. For the latter reason, I don't prefer Unity. Now, when a beginner uses Unity, they will approach someone like me. But since I dislike the unorthodox UI, I might be able to help her. But I am sure a fellow Unity enthusiast would be more than willing to help.
So my feelings are mixed and not as upbeat as the OP thinks.
Regarding an OS being intuitive...my wife is typically the ultimate test. She's not a power user...she just wants to surf the web, process photos, and email. She also has very low tolerance for UX deficiencies.
I've had Windows 7, Ubuntu with Gnome 2, and OSX Snow Leopard and Lion in front of her. She was ok with Windows 7...it was tolerable, but we hit our first virus soon in and I ordered it off the machine. She liked Gnome 2 better, but it took a bit of getting used. Unity was pretty straight-forward for her...she likes it very much and prefers it above all others. OS X, however, was an entirely frustrating experience. I gave her my Macbook Pro because I was using my Lenovo Ubuntu notebook far more often and felt my hard-earned Apple investment was going to waste. She gave it a fair shot but HATED it. OS X's insistence on keeping applications open in the background even after the last window is closed slowly ate up memory. If two users are logged into the system and simply running a web browser and nothing more, the system crawls...no clue why. But the absolute worst part of her experience was the completely obstinate, bizarre OS X window switching and minimizing behavior. I realize many of you are accustomed to it by now, but she still rants about the fact that command-tab won't switch between all windows, and how minimizing a window requires right-clicking the icon to find it. Anyway, I'm sure there are ways to work around this behavior, but it should give one pause when someone calls Mac OS intuitive...I'd argue it's far from it.
I've had Windows 7, Ubuntu with Gnome 2, and OSX Snow Leopard and Lion in front of her. She was ok with Windows 7...it was tolerable, but we hit our first virus soon in and I ordered it off the machine. She liked Gnome 2 better, but it took a bit of getting used. Unity was pretty straight-forward for her...she likes it very much and prefers it above all others. OS X, however, was an entirely frustrating experience. I gave her my Macbook Pro because I was using my Lenovo Ubuntu notebook far more often and felt my hard-earned Apple investment was going to waste. She gave it a fair shot but HATED it. OS X's insistence on keeping applications open in the background even after the last window is closed slowly ate up memory. If two users are logged into the system and simply running a web browser and nothing more, the system crawls...no clue why. But the absolute worst part of her experience was the completely obstinate, bizarre OS X window switching and minimizing behavior. I realize many of you are accustomed to it by now, but she still rants about the fact that command-tab won't switch between all windows, and how minimizing a window requires right-clicking the icon to find it. Anyway, I'm sure there are ways to work around this behavior, but it should give one pause when someone calls Mac OS intuitive...I'd argue it's far from it.
I'm not so sure about "eating memory" with programs still running. I'm no OS expert but I'm pretty sure that assuming that app isn't doing anything then it's pages will be swapped out to disk (in essence , quitting the application from a memory perspective) if there are more pressing requirements for the memory.
What is the technical difference between a program that is running or not running? As far as I can tell it depends on whether it has an entry in the scheduler , performance then should only vary based on how many O(n) (or worse) routines there are in the scheduler where n is the number of processes including ones that are sleeping?
I think that measuring swap usage is a more important metric than RAM usage.
What is the technical difference between a program that is running or not running? As far as I can tell it depends on whether it has an entry in the scheduler , performance then should only vary based on how many O(n) (or worse) routines there are in the scheduler where n is the number of processes including ones that are sleeping?
I think that measuring swap usage is a more important metric than RAM usage.
I'm no OS expert but I'm pretty sure that assuming that app isn't doing anything then it's pages will be swapped out to disk (in essence , quitting the application from a memory perspective) if there are more pressing requirements for the memory.
Yes, but let's say you open an email client to receive notifications. Then you perform various tasks that involve opening new applications for a limited period of time, and they keep running after you're done with them. Eventually they'll use all the memory and the email client, since it's been idle for so long, gets paged to swap.
Now you get a new email notification and you click to open it, which forces the system to page something else and "bring back" the email client, which creates a huge delay between the click and the email window showing up.
If the temp applications had been closed as each task was completed, the email client would've never been paged out, so it'd remain fast when it was needed.
This might seem a contrived example, but if you have some applications that you tend to leave open, it can be hell.
Yes, but let's say you open an email client to receive notifications. Then you perform various tasks that involve opening new applications for a limited period of time, and they keep running after you're done with them. Eventually they'll use all the memory and the email client, since it's been idle for so long, gets paged to swap.
Now you get a new email notification and you click to open it, which forces the system to page something else and "bring back" the email client, which creates a huge delay between the click and the email window showing up.
If the temp applications had been closed as each task was completed, the email client would've never been paged out, so it'd remain fast when it was needed.
This might seem a contrived example, but if you have some applications that you tend to leave open, it can be hell.
I see what you are saying here, although I suppose in this example the email client is probably doing some polling tasks in the background making it less likely to be swapped.
Surely it would not be difficult to have a paging algorithm that says something like "this program has no open windows or background tasks in operation you should prefer to swap this application's memory over others", no idea whether this is how it currently works or not?
I suppose there is the overhead of doing the swap operation which you would not need to do if you'd simply dumped the contents of the applications memory on the floor. I guess the memory management algorithm could just swap stuff related to state to disk but dump library code completely and reload this as needed.
Memory is so cheap now that people will usually have more of it than they are actually using at any one time so it probably makes sense where possible to still hold recently used applications (state + libs etc) in there if there is no contention for the memory.
I think my overarching point is that OS programmers are pretty smart , I would be slow to assume that they screwed something up in such an obvious way.
Surely it would not be difficult to have a paging algorithm that says something like "this program has no open windows or background tasks in operation you should prefer to swap this application's memory over others", no idea whether this is how it currently works or not?
I suppose there is the overhead of doing the swap operation which you would not need to do if you'd simply dumped the contents of the applications memory on the floor. I guess the memory management algorithm could just swap stuff related to state to disk but dump library code completely and reload this as needed.
Memory is so cheap now that people will usually have more of it than they are actually using at any one time so it probably makes sense where possible to still hold recently used applications (state + libs etc) in there if there is no contention for the memory.
I think my overarching point is that OS programmers are pretty smart , I would be slow to assume that they screwed something up in such an obvious way.
> Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS)
I often hear people saying that the Mac is intuitive. Is there actually proper proof for this?
I often hear people saying that the Mac is intuitive. Is there actually proper proof for this?
I'm not sure about intuitive (when I use OS X I still have to lookup on google how to do things) but it is more discoverable in my limited experience. There are just less buttons and menus than there are in Windows, Linux desktop sort of has this advantage too although often many of the things that would have been done with the extra buttons are done with the Terminal.
Also OS X is generally allot more consistent in it's interface than Linux is.
Also OS X is generally allot more consistent in it's interface than Linux is.
I think most of the time when people say "intuitive" they mean "discoverable". I'm not even sure "intuitive" is a property software can possess.
I think what I meant was that it is more discoverable usually just because there are less buttons not necessarily because those buttons are located better.
I really like OS X, but I don't think it is. What I do think it is, though, is more consistent. Apple and almost all app providers do a pretty good job following the HIG[1].
1. http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/U...
1. http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/U...
It's been "the year of desktop Linux" every year since about 2006 for me. Who cares what everyone else is using? Just find a system you're happy with and stick with it.
"""Who cares what everyone else is using?"""
A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster.
The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?".
Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"?
We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.
A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster.
The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?".
Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"?
We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.
I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using. We don't care what they are using. Any of your arguments as to why we should would apply equally well to cars, but you never see people have that conversation.
The car analogy doesn't work so well here because cars are far more interchangeable, although if you use a less popular type of car perhaps it is more difficult get parts for it for example.
The advantage of using a common OS is that other people have probably had the problems before you have , often on Linux I feel like I may the first person to experience a particular problem. More users = more software generally, cars don't require "extra" stuff that is designed for a specific car in order to do their job.
The advantage of using a common OS is that other people have probably had the problems before you have , often on Linux I feel like I may the first person to experience a particular problem. More users = more software generally, cars don't require "extra" stuff that is designed for a specific car in order to do their job.
In the vast majority of cases, computers (software and hardware) are quite generic. It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern.
hardware in many cases yes, software less so.
There are very few cases where one piece of software is a good substitute for another and where they are they are usually trivial pieces of software.
Approximately 80% of the time, the software that works on one computer will work on another. In most of the remaining cases, the software will still work on the other computer, or at least have an acceptable substitute. For example, Microsoft Office works on a high 90's percent of all personal computers.
It is only if you have an exotic car^W computer that you'll have trouble finding parts^W software.
It is only if you have an exotic car^W computer that you'll have trouble finding parts^W software.
"""I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using."""
So, by you own logic, nobody cares to read what you and he are using, except you and him respectively. Which was kind of, my point.
"""We don't care what they are using. """
Good for you. This thread is about adoption, though, and about caring about what they are using --and specifically whether Unity is good for mass Linux adoption.
So, by you own logic, nobody cares to read what you and he are using, except you and him respectively. Which was kind of, my point.
"""We don't care what they are using. """
Good for you. This thread is about adoption, though, and about caring about what they are using --and specifically whether Unity is good for mass Linux adoption.
"So, by you own logic"
That is your logic, not my own. I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.
That is your logic, not my own. I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.
"""I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using."""
So, you:
(a) "care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to [your] own", but: (b) "[you] don't care what operating system he is using.".
I fail to see how (a) can be conciliated with (b), given that he is writing about "what operating system he is using", that is the very thing that you "don't care about".
It's not the only part where you defy logic and embrace contradiction...
Responding to another comment you invoke the car analogy to invalidate my argument, but when someone confronts you you tell him that: "It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern."
Are you not aware that we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the second case here, "Linux on the desktop"? Is there any special logic employed here?
So, you:
(a) "care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to [your] own", but: (b) "[you] don't care what operating system he is using.".
I fail to see how (a) can be conciliated with (b), given that he is writing about "what operating system he is using", that is the very thing that you "don't care about".
It's not the only part where you defy logic and embrace contradiction...
Responding to another comment you invoke the car analogy to invalidate my argument, but when someone confronts you you tell him that: "It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern."
Are you not aware that we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the second case here, "Linux on the desktop"? Is there any special logic employed here?
Linux is an exotic car. People trying to push linux on the general population so that they have an "easier time getting parts" are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too. I don't care if the expensive/exotic car is Linux, Solaris, OpenBSD, Plan 9, BeOS, OSX,... ...It's just fucking annoying.
Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit. I believe I have now clearly articulated my position, the rest is on you.
Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit. I believe I have now clearly articulated my position, the rest is on you.
"""Linux is an exotic car. People trying to push linux on the general population so that they have an "easier time getting parts" are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too."""
One of the worst analogies I've seen in my life. And I've seen lots. Where to begin?
(a) There are supposed to be people that "drive expensive cars that think that everybody else should too"?
(b) And (those mythical and "annoying" people) do so because that way the would have an easier time "getting parts"?
And all this BS (that doesn't even make sense, anyone here met a Ferrari driver that believed that everyone should drive one so he can get parts easier? WTF?) is supposed to be an analogy to people promoting Linux on the desktop?
This discussion is not about someone saying everybody should run the "exotic" Linux on their desktop, it's all about people making changes to Linux (Unity, etc), in order to make it less exotic and more fit for the desktop.
Except if you think that Linux will forever be exotic. In which case you are mistaken.
"""Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit."""
Interestingly? Hardly. You have a tremendous difficulty in expressing yourself coherently.
One of the worst analogies I've seen in my life. And I've seen lots. Where to begin?
(a) There are supposed to be people that "drive expensive cars that think that everybody else should too"?
(b) And (those mythical and "annoying" people) do so because that way the would have an easier time "getting parts"?
And all this BS (that doesn't even make sense, anyone here met a Ferrari driver that believed that everyone should drive one so he can get parts easier? WTF?) is supposed to be an analogy to people promoting Linux on the desktop?
This discussion is not about someone saying everybody should run the "exotic" Linux on their desktop, it's all about people making changes to Linux (Unity, etc), in order to make it less exotic and more fit for the desktop.
Except if you think that Linux will forever be exotic. In which case you are mistaken.
"""Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit."""
Interestingly? Hardly. You have a tremendous difficulty in expressing yourself coherently.
"Any of your arguments as to why we should would apply equally well to cars, but you never see people have that conversation."
Reading comprehension FTW.
Reading comprehension FTW.
Yeah, "you never see people have that conversation", and then you go and use that exact conversation as existing to back up your argument:
"""are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too."""
So, Linux people wanting "networks effects", are "just as annoying" as exotic car driving people that DON'T EXIST.
Writing skills, FTW. Maybe next time you can invoke unicorns to back up your arguments too. You never see them, either.
"""are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too."""
So, Linux people wanting "networks effects", are "just as annoying" as exotic car driving people that DON'T EXIST.
Writing skills, FTW. Maybe next time you can invoke unicorns to back up your arguments too. You never see them, either.
"As for Unity; its incomplete, buggy and complicated." -- four lines later: "The non geek will love Unity. Its simple to use [...]". The author fails to be consistent even in a single paragraph. Even the post's title contradicts its content.
Note the present tense in the first quote and the future tense in the second. Unity will be a very user-friendly system once they fix more of the bugs.
The problem is, by the time they have fixed the bugs and made it nice they will spot something else shiny and start again.
So you'll get 2 or 3 nice stable releases before being baptized by fire again.
So you'll get 2 or 3 nice stable releases before being baptized by fire again.
Indeed, look at all the work canonical spent into speeding up boot and how it a couple of releases later regressed heavily almost back to where we started. Stories like this gives me little faith in Canonical managing to keep on improving Unity.
Ugh, that is hype and nothing more. I've been using ubuntu since version 4 or so, and Unity has made me switch the windowing manager. Simple as that. It impedes my workflow and it doesn't even come close to what a simple, developer centric manager should be in my point of view. I installed the WM that comes with Lubuntu and unless Unity changes for the better, it will not be on my workstation.
I can also say, that many developers I work with feel the same way. It wasn't as if we didn't try to get used to it.
I can also say, that many developers I work with feel the same way. It wasn't as if we didn't try to get used to it.
And there's precisely the point: "it will not be on my workstation".
Unity is aiming for the desktop market, not the workstation market.
My desktop is Windows, because it allows me to consume media, browse the web, shove stuff onto my iPod with iTunes, and at no point do I actually have to think.
My workstation is debian with fvwm2.
Ubuntu is "linux for human beings", not "linux for development workstations". This is not necessarily a problem.
Unity is aiming for the desktop market, not the workstation market.
My desktop is Windows, because it allows me to consume media, browse the web, shove stuff onto my iPod with iTunes, and at no point do I actually have to think.
My workstation is debian with fvwm2.
Ubuntu is "linux for human beings", not "linux for development workstations". This is not necessarily a problem.
Unity isn't for developers.
This almost seems plausible until you realize that Gnome 3 has all the polish of Unity but none of the immediately obvious bugs. If they had simply contributed to Gnome 3 instead of breaking off into their own thing, the result would be far ahead of what they have now.
I am not alone thinking Gnome 3 is not as comfortable to work with as Unity. Unity was born because Canonical wasn't happy with the directions Gnome was taking with 3, and, after using 3 for some time, I have to agree - lots of polish, true, but it's not as clean and direct as Unity.
Unity has its bugs. In the end, they'll be dealt with. It's a 1.0 release, after all.
Unity has its bugs. In the end, they'll be dealt with. It's a 1.0 release, after all.
I really want to know how these "non-geeks" are going to get a chance to like Unity. I'm all for bringing Linux closer to people, and looking at the work that Android has done, it clarifies that with a correct marketing and technical drive, Linux' openness is something which can attract a large range of users.
Worth noting that Android for all intents and purposes is fighting a closed, one-device (or at least one brand of device) Apple iOS. Commanding a place on desktops (not sure the relevance of this is still the same) will be arguably a different fight than on the mobile space.
Windows runs on all hardware, its a familiar albeit crappy at times interface. What tells me most that Linux as a viable desktop for non-geeks is a fairytale never going to happen is the fact that right now, apart from a select group of pc vendors, the only way for anyone non-technical to get access to a ubuntu install is to install it themselves.
It doesn't matter if its such a simple install, users are frightened to install a simple application at times.
On this note, I always find it mystifying who all these non-geeks we are trying to appeal to are, I'm all for a slicker, easier to use desktop but why not target it at the market which have stood by and held up Linux for all these years.
Worth noting that Android for all intents and purposes is fighting a closed, one-device (or at least one brand of device) Apple iOS. Commanding a place on desktops (not sure the relevance of this is still the same) will be arguably a different fight than on the mobile space.
Windows runs on all hardware, its a familiar albeit crappy at times interface. What tells me most that Linux as a viable desktop for non-geeks is a fairytale never going to happen is the fact that right now, apart from a select group of pc vendors, the only way for anyone non-technical to get access to a ubuntu install is to install it themselves.
It doesn't matter if its such a simple install, users are frightened to install a simple application at times.
On this note, I always find it mystifying who all these non-geeks we are trying to appeal to are, I'm all for a slicker, easier to use desktop but why not target it at the market which have stood by and held up Linux for all these years.
I think the only thing wrong with Unity is that it came without instructions.
My dad, a non computer expert, updated to a recent Ubuntu and wondered where did all the menus go to. He called me saying that he needed help.
Even I'm a power user, it also took me time to adapt. The first days I was trying to do things the old way. For example trying to find the applications by clicking instead of typing. After I realized, I think I'm now faster than before. I was already used to Quicksilver and Launchy, so pressing the start key, typing a few letters and pressing enter feels fast and easy.
I was also annoyed by windows maximizing when I dragged them to the top. No one told me what was that about. Today I realized that I can easily drag windows to the left or right borders for having two windows side by side, which I find very useful.
So I think what's missing is a welcome video tutorial that explains the changes and tells us how to be productive with Unity.
I wonder about one thing though: aren't geeks doing most things with the keyboard? I don't think you notice Unity much if you stay away from the mouse.
My dad, a non computer expert, updated to a recent Ubuntu and wondered where did all the menus go to. He called me saying that he needed help.
Even I'm a power user, it also took me time to adapt. The first days I was trying to do things the old way. For example trying to find the applications by clicking instead of typing. After I realized, I think I'm now faster than before. I was already used to Quicksilver and Launchy, so pressing the start key, typing a few letters and pressing enter feels fast and easy.
I was also annoyed by windows maximizing when I dragged them to the top. No one told me what was that about. Today I realized that I can easily drag windows to the left or right borders for having two windows side by side, which I find very useful.
So I think what's missing is a welcome video tutorial that explains the changes and tells us how to be productive with Unity.
I wonder about one thing though: aren't geeks doing most things with the keyboard? I don't think you notice Unity much if you stay away from the mouse.
Maybe Unity isn't the best possible UI they could've made, but the strategy is definitely a good one. They need an UI that's as easy as possible to use if Linux will ever be destined for regular consumers.
On the other hand, they might've done this too late. Android will probably be the popular solution on all devices and machines that could have been running it.
On the other hand, they might've done this too late. Android will probably be the popular solution on all devices and machines that could have been running it.
Alienating current users (geeks) for prospective users (non-geeks) is always a bad move regardless of what the product is.
Very true, Apple does a fair job (mostly) in avoiding this and even Microsoft aren't terrible at it. There's just as many hardcore developers who love their macbooks as there are english lit students.
The idea that you have to somehow have an apartheid for users is silly.
If I trade an economical Toyota for a Ferrari the mission statement of the car may be very different but the basic interface (wheel + 3 pedals) is the same. Apart from knowing that the gas is going to be way more responsive on the ferrari you don't really need to re-learn driving just to switch.
The idea that you have to somehow have an apartheid for users is silly.
If I trade an economical Toyota for a Ferrari the mission statement of the car may be very different but the basic interface (wheel + 3 pedals) is the same. Apart from knowing that the gas is going to be way more responsive on the ferrari you don't really need to re-learn driving just to switch.
There is no indication whatsoever that Ubuntu will be able to reach "average joe", and building a product for audience you can't reach is pretty pointless. The only audience really using Ubuntu is one consisting of coders and geeks.
There's a famous russian chinese saying: When a rhino stares at the moon - he is wasting his spleen flowers.
There's a famous russian chinese saying: When a rhino stares at the moon - he is wasting his spleen flowers.
I agree, if they had taken advantage of the fact that their competitors are spending lots of resources on simpler OSs for tablets etc and concentrated on providing the best Power User experience out there and spent the time they spent on Unity building really useful software I think there would be more of a business model for them.
I can't contemplate how on earth they might reach tablets either.
(Not ones hand-made for 125$, obviously, that one ran Windows anyway).
(Not ones hand-made for 125$, obviously, that one ran Windows anyway).
They have 3 options I think.
1) Get people to jailbreak their tablets and install it. Fair enough but it will be very niche and more of a novelty, will never reach critical mass to get useful commercial apps. Will probably get picked by Chinese manufacturers who will resell cheap tablets with Ubuntu re-themed to look as much like iOS as possible, probably called iBuntu or something.
2) Make deals with manufacturers and produce mass market tablets, they will have to compete head on with android and I'm not sure what their USP would be here. They would either need 100% android compatibility or would need to magic allot of app developers out of thin air.
3) Go exclusively for niche markets, for example selling to car manufacturers developing bespoke in-car entertainment systems. This would be a whole new business strategy for them and would basically remove the need for the "ubuntu project" as it exists today.
1) Get people to jailbreak their tablets and install it. Fair enough but it will be very niche and more of a novelty, will never reach critical mass to get useful commercial apps. Will probably get picked by Chinese manufacturers who will resell cheap tablets with Ubuntu re-themed to look as much like iOS as possible, probably called iBuntu or something.
2) Make deals with manufacturers and produce mass market tablets, they will have to compete head on with android and I'm not sure what their USP would be here. They would either need 100% android compatibility or would need to magic allot of app developers out of thin air.
3) Go exclusively for niche markets, for example selling to car manufacturers developing bespoke in-car entertainment systems. This would be a whole new business strategy for them and would basically remove the need for the "ubuntu project" as it exists today.
None of these options make what they do now viable.
They did (sort of) reach a mass audience through Dell's Ubuntu laptop program in 2007. It didn't quite work out then because Ubuntu wasn't ready (I owned one, it was not ready for prime time). It still isn't, but it's closer. If it was ready, then avoiding the Windows tax would be a good enough reason for retailers to push Ubuntu.
The issue with pushing Linux onto unwitting users is many don't understand it's incompatible with their Win32 software and end up returning the computer. Therefore Dell had to put up a big "here be dragons" page in front of the Ubuntu systems.
If this were to actually work, they would need some sort of huge mass marketing campaign which convinced people they actually want or need Linux on their computer, which is very unlikely. Defining your audience as people who want to save the 5% cost of a Windows license cost from their already cheapass PC is never going to amount to much.
If this were to actually work, they would need some sort of huge mass marketing campaign which convinced people they actually want or need Linux on their computer, which is very unlikely. Defining your audience as people who want to save the 5% cost of a Windows license cost from their already cheapass PC is never going to amount to much.
Your point is valid, but it's becoming less so. The web is taking over more and more of what used to be desktop territory, and the OS is becoming a device driver for the internet. There are plenty of people now who just need something that will run a web browser (granted, there are also still plenty who have to have MS Office or whatever).
The more cheapass the PC, the more of a difference the Windows Tax makes. $50 out of $1000 is only 5%, but $50 out of a $115 Walmart computer[1] is pretty substantial (not that Walmart is likely to be paying that much for a Windows license, but at the low end a little bit of money makes a big difference).
[1] http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171
The more cheapass the PC, the more of a difference the Windows Tax makes. $50 out of $1000 is only 5%, but $50 out of a $115 Walmart computer[1] is pretty substantial (not that Walmart is likely to be paying that much for a Windows license, but at the low end a little bit of money makes a big difference).
[1] http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171
The point wasn't whether people do or don't need Windows software, it's that you can't just throw Linux systems on the market unless the consumer feels they have some compelling reason to buy one.
And MS does scale their license prices based on the system costs, but I think you've demonstrated one can always find a cheaper PC without switching to Linux.
And MS does scale their license prices based on the system costs, but I think you've demonstrated one can always find a cheaper PC without switching to Linux.
A cheap PC would be cheaper without an MS tax, unless MS was willing to give Windows away for free to keep Linux from getting a foothold. Sure, the money may not be much, but if you don't perceive a difference in quality, you'll buy the $.98 can of beans over the $.99 one. $115 is hardly a theoretical lower bound to the price of a PC.
There are also large organizations that would like to cut costs wherever they can, and can't be expected to make up the Windows tax by installing crapware like a vendor can. The city of Munich is the most well-known example of a big player switching to Linux. The effort was not a complete failure but was something of a disappointment - I don't think Munich ended up saving any money when you consider the labor costs, etc. But if Linux had been ready and the transition had been more successful, you'd see a lot of imitators following Munich's lead.
But it's probably a moot point anyway. I think Android will end up swallowing the PC market like a classic disruptive technology and stealing Linux's thunder anyway.
There are also large organizations that would like to cut costs wherever they can, and can't be expected to make up the Windows tax by installing crapware like a vendor can. The city of Munich is the most well-known example of a big player switching to Linux. The effort was not a complete failure but was something of a disappointment - I don't think Munich ended up saving any money when you consider the labor costs, etc. But if Linux had been ready and the transition had been more successful, you'd see a lot of imitators following Munich's lead.
But it's probably a moot point anyway. I think Android will end up swallowing the PC market like a classic disruptive technology and stealing Linux's thunder anyway.
Sadly, PC makers offset the Windows tax by installing crapware in it. It makes harder for Canonical to gain advantage.
One of the things I think is keeping any desktop from being "the one" is the lack of true developer interoperability. You can program in gtk or qt (or many many others) but for a single distro your "best" programs span a number of different ways to do the same thing (and many flame wars).
This is the greatest thing about Linux, and its curse. In Windows you have the Windows API, in OSx you have Cocoa. Sure you can add more to the mix but most of it is the main API.
I enjoyed the direction gnome2 was going, slowly filling in the niches needed to create a complete system. Then it seems they scratched that and went with gnome3. I like a lot of things about gnome3, but I wish gnome2 would not be defunct.
The same goes for kde, slowly building a complete system of tools for most users.
Both gnome and kde are the reason people would choose gtk or qt for their development.
What Unity needs (and I am not sure if it is in the works) is a true Unity API. Build apps for Unity with Unity specifics. Of course this goes against the Linux way, but if one really wants "the year of Linux on the desktop" we have to stop being a moving target.
This is the greatest thing about Linux, and its curse. In Windows you have the Windows API, in OSx you have Cocoa. Sure you can add more to the mix but most of it is the main API.
I enjoyed the direction gnome2 was going, slowly filling in the niches needed to create a complete system. Then it seems they scratched that and went with gnome3. I like a lot of things about gnome3, but I wish gnome2 would not be defunct.
The same goes for kde, slowly building a complete system of tools for most users.
Both gnome and kde are the reason people would choose gtk or qt for their development.
What Unity needs (and I am not sure if it is in the works) is a true Unity API. Build apps for Unity with Unity specifics. Of course this goes against the Linux way, but if one really wants "the year of Linux on the desktop" we have to stop being a moving target.
The only constructive thing I take from this discussion is that on Linux everyone has a completely different way of working.
Accommodating this requires either multiple WMs or ones which are very flexible. The problem with Unity is that it dilutes the work available for other window managers reducing the number of quality choices but it does not replace this with enough flexibility in itself.
Accommodating this requires either multiple WMs or ones which are very flexible. The problem with Unity is that it dilutes the work available for other window managers reducing the number of quality choices but it does not replace this with enough flexibility in itself.
I held off until couple days ago on installing 11 with Unity and was very frustrated... I didn't want to believe it, but it was way too dumbed down for me. I was almost insulted...
If I want pretty GFX and UI I'll just use my mac.
Yes, you can disable Unity... But the issue for me is a lot of man power will be spent on it. Manpower that could be put to use on other things.
If I want pretty GFX and UI I'll just use my mac.
Yes, you can disable Unity... But the issue for me is a lot of man power will be spent on it. Manpower that could be put to use on other things.
I see the "dumbed down" complaint a lot, but I don't understand it. What is missing from Unity that you could do before? Or is it that if something is pretty or simple it is automatically worth less somehow than something ugly or complicated?
For me Unity is far more powerful out of the box than GNOME 2 was. Being able to position and tile windows with the keyboard and having 10 applications easily and automatically bound to a keystroke are huge timesavers for me.
For me Unity is far more powerful out of the box than GNOME 2 was. Being able to position and tile windows with the keyboard and having 10 applications easily and automatically bound to a keystroke are huge timesavers for me.
Urgh, where to start?
Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC. It's neither consistent with what their used to nor does it create any kind of superior paradigm to what already exists.
Sure you can browse the web , play music and do the odd spreadsheet etc with it , big whoop we've been doing this for years , it would have been exciting in the late 90s not now.
The barrier for Ubuntu is not really it's UI. It's problems like having a really horrible flash player, poor selection of applications for many tasks (not to mention games). Not to mention other nasties like pulseaudio,networkmanager,dependency problems etc.
Ubuntu is so desperately trying to be a cut price apple, now they want to move to tablets.. Ok so they will have the same problem they have had on the desktop for the last 20 years, lack of consumer applications.
Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC. It's neither consistent with what their used to nor does it create any kind of superior paradigm to what already exists.
Sure you can browse the web , play music and do the odd spreadsheet etc with it , big whoop we've been doing this for years , it would have been exciting in the late 90s not now.
The barrier for Ubuntu is not really it's UI. It's problems like having a really horrible flash player, poor selection of applications for many tasks (not to mention games). Not to mention other nasties like pulseaudio,networkmanager,dependency problems etc.
Ubuntu is so desperately trying to be a cut price apple, now they want to move to tablets.. Ok so they will have the same problem they have had on the desktop for the last 20 years, lack of consumer applications.
"Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC."
'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going to use. Always. What a Linux desktop looks like and aspires to be and how well/whether it works means nothing in this context. Nothing.
Numbers-wise, people using Linux on the desktop are: geeks (an insignificant percentage of PC users) and friends/parents of geeks (an insignificant percentage the former).
We're like flies buzzing around a very small pile of elephant dung (but it's really good dung); meanwhile the elephant has lumbered off, out of site.
'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going to use. Always. What a Linux desktop looks like and aspires to be and how well/whether it works means nothing in this context. Nothing.
Numbers-wise, people using Linux on the desktop are: geeks (an insignificant percentage of PC users) and friends/parents of geeks (an insignificant percentage the former).
We're like flies buzzing around a very small pile of elephant dung (but it's really good dung); meanwhile the elephant has lumbered off, out of site.
Not totally sure, yes there is always going to be a big advantage to whatever comes with the PC.
I think if there was a clear sales pitch that could be used to sell Linux desktop as an alternative to Windows there would be enough people willing it try switching to give it critical mass which would then cause OEMs to ship it with some of their computers.
Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc.
Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make?
It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?
Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc.
Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make?
It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?
So to sum this article up: 'unity is awesome and will finally let non geeks use linux, but any current linux users should move on to other distros.'
despite how illogical that sounds, that may very well be cannonical's game plan.
despite how illogical that sounds, that may very well be cannonical's game plan.
This is a pretty horrible plan, all the power users who helped report & fix bugs + answer questions on forums/wikis for ubuntu will move onto something else so canonical will be on their own for providing testing and support which will either slow down their release cycles allot (no bad thing). Or they will keep pushing buggy untested software straight into the hands of peoples grandmas.
I am a developer and I don't know what he's talking about. Sure Unity is a bit unpolished around the edges, but I barely use it. Most of the time of a developer is spent in shells and editors (and, occasionally, a browser). All I see of it is when I have to launch something and, quite frankly, hitting the windows key and typing is much faster than menueing around.
Of course 2012 won't be the year of the Linux desktop and he nails it when he says we really don't want it. Give me power and stability. Give me power-user-friendliness, not grandma-friendliness.
Of course 2012 won't be the year of the Linux desktop and he nails it when he says we really don't want it. Give me power and stability. Give me power-user-friendliness, not grandma-friendliness.
"I can no longer remember Ubuntu’s release names and numbers. I had to look it up for this article, apparently its at 11.10."
YY.MM of release date.
YY.MM of release date.
Jesus. A decent, level headed article, ended with the same fear mongering of every other article where the author doesn't like Unity. For some reason, if Ubuntu has Unity has the default launcher, you must choose a different distribution in order to use a different DE. Because a distro's DE is more important than it's package management, community, available random software, etc.
I've tried Unity and I didn't like it. But that was to be expected, since I've been using xmonad for more than a year now.
Power users like myself will always find a way to get their favourite system up and running. I agree with Canonical and their policy of "fuck you, we're doing that no matter what you tell us", since their current user base is almost 100% power users and you can't really grow out of that niche if you don't take bold decisions. We will probably leave ubuntu because of it (I'm already on Arch Linux on most of my machines) but if they manage to attract a good slice of the market it will be a great thing for Linux as a whole.
They probably shouldn't try to sell themselves as a "cheap mac", but that's another story.
Power users like myself will always find a way to get their favourite system up and running. I agree with Canonical and their policy of "fuck you, we're doing that no matter what you tell us", since their current user base is almost 100% power users and you can't really grow out of that niche if you don't take bold decisions. We will probably leave ubuntu because of it (I'm already on Arch Linux on most of my machines) but if they manage to attract a good slice of the market it will be a great thing for Linux as a whole.
They probably shouldn't try to sell themselves as a "cheap mac", but that's another story.
I think this am excellent point. Every time I've seen this brought up it turns into an argument over which features of Unity suck worst.
So normal people have Ubuntu and Unity and the rest of us have a million other options. Hell, I even used Ununtu for development for a while. It was nice for a month but then the novelty wore off and Unity got in my way. But I hope more people realize that Ubuntu is not for you, it's for everyone (if everyone means you aren't a big power user). What's wrong with that?
So normal people have Ubuntu and Unity and the rest of us have a million other options. Hell, I even used Ununtu for development for a while. It was nice for a month but then the novelty wore off and Unity got in my way. But I hope more people realize that Ubuntu is not for you, it's for everyone (if everyone means you aren't a big power user). What's wrong with that?
I already switch one of my production PC to Hackintosh due to Unity. I believe OP's just a propaganda anyway.
I am a geek and I like Unity. It's like emacs of the world of UI's. The first modern GUI you don't need to use a mouse to work with it. I find it very productive.
What do you use to work with it?
I didn't try it for very long but I didn't find it especially conductive to keyboard use.
Or are you referring to touchscreen usage? How many people are actually using multitouch with Ubuntu?
Or are you referring to touchscreen usage? How many people are actually using multitouch with Ubuntu?
http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboar...
You can launch or switch to any of the first 10 applications on the launcher, resize/maximize/minimize a window, tile multiple windows, switch workspaces, or bring up the dash with a single keybinding for each. The only one of those I remember being able to do in GNOME 2 was switch workspaces.
You can launch or switch to any of the first 10 applications on the launcher, resize/maximize/minimize a window, tile multiple windows, switch workspaces, or bring up the dash with a single keybinding for each. The only one of those I remember being able to do in GNOME 2 was switch workspaces.
> resize/maximize/minimize a window,
(http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html)
(http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html)
Alt-spacebar Opens the Window Menu.
Alt-spacebar requires multiple keystrokes and does not allow easy tiling or snapping to corners/center.
I have tried Unity and I really like it. It is simple and it does what I need. It respects my screen estate without taking functionality and clarity. I really don't understand what other power users are missing.
P.S. I don't like that Unity has some bugs but those are minor problems.