I don't really understand what the author is trying to say. Granted, it's been a while since I used Ubuntu, but as a developer I mainly live in my editor and terminal.
Anything I ever wanted is just an apt-get away and is mostly installed in a sensible way.
Ubuntu simplifying desktop features and changing defaults to be easier for users like my mom sounds like a great thing to happen to Linux.
That stuff is mostly orthogonal to developers who, you know, know how to deviate from the standard configuration and tools.
Ubuntu fails to showcase many of the best aspects of Linux as a system. Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else. Instead of an environment in which "users" are at the mercy of "developers", the instruction manual is included. Anyone can change their computer's behavior to the extent of their choosing--and there's nobody to tell them not to. Ubuntu takes this and ignores it completely, trying instead to copy user interface features from other projects and environments to win users that like the idea of cheap software.
Not everyone is a kernel hacker, obviously... but Ubuntu should be proud that on Linux every user /can/ become one if they so desire. To emphasize the same read-only one-size-fits-all thinking that Apple has popularized is to disregard entirely the philosophy of the foundation on which Ubuntu exists.
The argument that Ubuntu is a pragmatic, get-things-done distribution is founded in fact; it certainly is. But that doesn't mean it has to make it worse for software development and make it difficult to actually alter your system in meaningful ways. I ran Ubuntu for over a year and every attempt to dig into the system's internals (init scripts, configuration tools, what apt actually /did/, etc.) resulted in frustration because of the great complexity and the lack of any help that the OS itself provided. Comparing distros like Arch Linux that guide their users into the system in order to make the changes they want, Ubuntu is about as read-only as I've ever seen in an open-source Linux-based system.
Even so, Arch isn't a distro for beginners by any stretch of imagination. And there I think Ubuntu has the ability to come out far ahead, if they embrace the fact that they are producing a system designed to be improved by the "end-users". A Linux distribution is not a product like a commercial software package. It's an environment that should foster both productivity and learning. To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Sure, there may be a table to craft today, but improving at the craft of doing so is an important goal--and Ubuntu should help its users improve in their usage of their systems by helping them take small, friendly steps into improving the software they use in real ways.
Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. Apple can't do that because they have to keep their users dependent. Ubuntu is missing out on its greatest source of potential.
The problem is that Unity doesn't have much in the way of deviation from the standard configuration. They're not just changing defaults, they're removing everything else.
This is a problem not for people who are already developers, because they will just install something else and move on, but for new users who won't have anything to discover.
The article said "In fact I think Linux has a tendency to encourage average computer users to become power users once they spend some time with it."
This may not be the best thing for everyone, but that's what the article was getting at.
I don't know whether you used "users like my mom" just as a manner of speech, but in my case that is literally true - my mom does use Ubuntu and I quite appreciate the simplification of Ubuntu's interface that's happened over time which has made it possible for my mom to use it.
I agree that they should come up with a nice default user friendly setup but they MUST also allow the user to toggle on/off the bits of fluff they want or don't want and they shouldn't have to search Google to figure out how. Also, they have to do fancy animations right, if they're consistently choppy they are no longer a positive feature. My machine runs Windows 7 with all the fluff smoothly, they need to hit that point. Since you haven't used it, all I have to ask is if the Alt+Tab screen took a full second or more to show up would you be happy even when just using an editor and terminal? I've been using Unity for over a month to give it a fair shot but I'm currently installing Xubuntu and I probably won't try Unity again until I consistently see people saying 'Whoa, check it out, they got it right'.
I think the fact that you haven't used it lately explains why you don't understand what the author is trying to say. There are plenty of "mom-level" user frustrations with this release too. (my young kids, who just play games, hate it)
I would sum up the article as such: Ubuntu needs to focus on being the best Ubuntu it can be for its users. If Ubuntu tries to be Apple (imposing arbitrary UI choices and tastes on them, with little to no recourse) it will neither be good at that or what they were good at to begin with.
Ubuntu used to be Debian that just worked. Now it's trying to be something more, but it seems to have lost the "just works" part. When I tried 11.10, I had problems with several of the desktop environments crashing or being very visibly broken. I had poor graphics performance. I had no suspend/resume. All of these things worked on the same computer a year ago.
I think Ubuntu may be trying to move too fast. Moving fast is great if you can pull it off, but it's not worth breaking the basic functions of the OS to get a more flashy UI. If Ubuntu does want to copy Apple, there's one major thing they need to learn: Apple releases features when they're done.
The problem is that Ubuntu is not focusing on the fundamentals and they're not putting enough money into testing.
I know well and good that Ubuntu was conceived because Shuttleworth felt that Linux was ready for the big time and that Red Hat etc had too much penchant to devote resources into low-level bickering that ultimately had relatively little effect on your average end user instead of focusing on improving user experience, but now that Ubuntu has moved the user experience so far forward, they should reconsider that mission. The places where Linux is most lacking is low-level compatibility for things like fast 3D acceleration and power management.
Canonical should use some of its funds (aka "Mark Shuttleworth's money") to buy the 100 best selling laptop models each year, set rigorous testing standards, spend six months developing a new release and then take however long is necessary to make sure that everything passes on the last three years' best selling laptops. In this process, they should not be shy about contribution to X, kernel, etc., and should distribute patched versions of these if necessary to get compatibility.
That, combined with Ubuntu's user experience work, is what will really make Linux a completely viable desktop computing platform. Far too often things break between releases and/or upgrades.
I totally agree. Unity in particular feels like alpha quality software. I like the idea of a sleek, modern, composited desktop, but Unity isn't there yet.
Releasing early and often is good. Pushing that software on people who didn't choose it is not. I feel like there should have been a "Try Unity" button at the Ubuntu installer so people like me could just wait until it's ready.
Maybe I'll be happy with Unity in two years. But in that time I'll have to suffer stuttering, lag and the whims of armchair UI theorists who think Alt-Tab should jump workspaces by default.
I agree with you. I have been an Ubuntu user since 6.06, and 11.10 was the buggiest release yet, by far.
I actually bought a Mac on Friday. I need a development environment that works. I don't like spending time yak-shaving when I could be solving real problems.
My biggest problem with Ubuntu is that it seems like you can treat it like Debian, but you can't. I don't know how many times I've updated files in /etc and had them rewritten by the Ubuntu specific GUIs without me knowing it.
I almost want Ubuntu to either abandon the traditional Debian subsystem or have a "Power User" configuration where you can tell it to use /etc files over the GUI config.
Besides Unity, what does Ubuntu currently offer that Debian's testing or unstable releases don't? I'm also surprised that people are using Ubuntu on servers.
I think Ubuntu should zag where Apple zags. I think they're doing it right. They're in a unique position to take an Apple-like path.
I, for one, applaud what they're doing, as much as it terrifies all the half-power-users (I don't mean that as a slight, I do think it's a little silly to get upset about Ubuntu's default WM and claim to 'understand UNIX').
If by "I don't mean that as a slight, I do think it's a little silly to get upset about Ubuntu's default WM and claim to 'understand UNIX'" you mean it's possible for a hacker to change back from Unity to another interface. I must concur... but dissent on the fact that doing so is easy for a regular geek. It's not. It may be easy to the people that do ""understand Unix"". But for myself, I found that it was easier saying it than doing it. Not impossible... true. However since I'm not a great "hacker" but a mere guy with some understanding of the terminal, it proved to be a real mess.
I think there were be less complaints about Unity if it didn't feel like an unfinished, half-baked piece of software. There are numerous issues with it that probably should have been solved before deciding that it was ready for 'prime time.' In trying to forcibly push everyone in the direction that they want to go, they may just sour a lot of people to the platform... Oops!
It's perfectly possible to get upset about Unity and understand Unix at the same time. With all the effort going into Unity, there's less effort available to QA the other options.
I really don't agree with this sentiment at all. There are infinite Linux distros out there to play with that are more inline with power users. Ubuntu is for a completely different crowd so what would be the point of just merging into that nexus? The world doesn't need another power-user Linux distro. It needs a Linux distro that isn't painful to use for the regular people.
Exactly. I think the statement "Linux users are power users," which is the premise underlying most of the OP, is too narrow-minded. The whole spirit of GNU/Linux is that anybody who wants to use it, can do so without restriction--power user, developer, third-world student, hacker, artist. That ethos is primary to any claim that Linux has to follow Unix philosophies or any particular UI guidelines. And it is exactly what has spawned and continues to nurture a healthy diversity of distros. Just because Ubuntu has gone in one direction means very little for Linux as a whole; some would argue that their direction is an important one, and time will tell. Certainly the work that Canonical does on usability and basics like driver support will be available for other distros to cherry pick as appropriate. The blunt answer to the OP is "if Canonical no longer serves your needs, just install one of the hundreds of other distros."
building a UI for developers is impossible, because every developer wants something totally different. it's also pointless because every developer will customize their environment to make it work for them.
you can't please all the people all the time. at some point you have to make a decision that some use cases can't be supported, for the sake of progress. in those cases, i think dropping support for the people who need support the least is the only logical way to go.
personally, i use ubuntu (and unity too!) every day as my primary development machine (python programming and database admin), and when i come home i have it on my primary play machine too. it does what it needs to do if you are willing to adjust your workflow a little bit. and if you aren't willing to adjust your workflow at all, ever, then maybe preconfigured DEs are not for you.
eh, personally, I also hate unity. I am a linux SysAdmin, so if I want to go muck around in the internals or install and configure my own window manager, sure, I can. But that's not why I use ubuntu on the desktop. I use ubuntu on the desktop because it just works. If I want to tinker with Linux, I can do it on a server and get paid for it. With older versions of ubuntu? heck, getting drivers is usually easier than with windows. Most things? plug and go, no downloading a driver from a third party website or anything. You plug it in and it just works. (Some things require more work. Those things get taken back to Fry's. Again, desktops are low-value. I'm not going to spend too much time messing with them.)
The problem is that unity is, well, it's garbage. If I wanted a mac, I'd buy a mac. I liked the old gnome defaults; they were pretty good. Right now? I'm on ubuntu 11.10, and I'm considering another distro.
Unity is simply unusable; It's annoying for all the reasons that the mac interface is annoying, only the whole thing is done, well, worse. Just finding a program is a huge pain in the ass. So I'm running gnome-legacy, which is okay, but still pretty annoying compared to older ubuntu versions.
So yeah; I'm pretty irritated. Not irritated enough to buy a mac, mind you, but likely irritated enough to spend some time looking at other distros, if I'm going to have to spend effort on my X setup, I'm going with a distro that is supported for more than three years.
I was in the same boat and ended up switching to Xubuntu -- and I don't regret it for one second. I get all the good stuff ("just works") with a sleek, customizable UI, that also happens to be very frugal wrt. system resources. It's a win-win really. :)
If people want a different linux experience to Ubuntu's offering, they're in luck, there are hundreds: http://distrowatch.com/
Ubuntu has specifically stated that they're aiming for the layperson, not the power user. If you cut your teeth on ubuntu and want more power in your linux box... try out another distro.
For me, Ubuntu has always been the "Linux for newbies" a little bit like Mandrake was in the time. I'm not saying that all Ubuntu users are newbies.. but Ubuntu is the distro to starts with if you're a beginner. Lots of my university friend who had no knowledge of Linux would get up and running with Ubunty in minutes. (A live cd, tool to help create partitions, [next], [next], automatically configure network). I mean, a Windows user would almost feel at home on Ubuntu.
Soooo, I find it weird that the author complains about Ubuntu saying it's not the right direction. We all know there are dozen of distributions and dozen of window managers. By all means, if you don't like the new updates, just take a WM more lightweight (For instance, fluxbox, awesome, stumpwm, xmonad, etc.) As for the distro, I'm using ArchLinux for a couple of years and I'm loving it.
It's not that I don't like beautiful intuitive UI; it's just that it's not for me (At least on my computers). However, I've got an iPhone and I love the fact that everything just work. But please, don't force me to use GUI everywhere on my desktop; let that for people who enjoys the everything just work.
But then, maybe I'm wrong. I assumed that Ubuntu always was axed for beginners.. Was I wrong with that assumption?
This is somehow reminiscent of Sun Tzu's _Art of War_.
My interpretation of the article: it would be more prudent to compete with Apple's weaknesses (developer friendliness) than to compete with their strengths (UI, zero configuration).
I think the author misses various ways that OS X has been developer friendly. Last I checked, Xcode is free, and OS X ships with Python, PHP, Ruby, and Apache.
Plus, as div said, developers live mostly in the terminal, so there isn't much that Canonical can do to cater to us. I'd rather have everything hidden from the end user but easily available to the power user via the command line.
> Apple [...] things that just work for most people irrespective of prior computer usage.
I've spent way to many hours helping fellow developers, friends and relatives to debug their Apple. Apple does not make things that just work irrespective of prior computer usage. People get totally lost with Apple just as they do with other environments and that is indeed irrespective of prior computer knowledge, which means so-called developers also get lost (MySQL-python anyone? Or maybe you'd rather have another slice of RMagick?)
The amount of "Power users shouldn't use Ubuntu" comments on here are fairly indicative of why those outside the power user/dev community view us the way they do. It's just elitist whining at the end of the day. Who the hell are "we" to decide what people should and shouldn't use based on their ability? It's just this sort of thing that turns the lay person away from wanting to know more.
Fact of the matter is, if you don't like Unity don't bloody use it. I've never found a single thing I couldn't do in Ubuntu that would force me over to another distro. I mean sure, we could all build our own Gentoo installs from the ground up but who the hell has that sort of time on their hands?
To indicate that Ubuntu is inherently a newbie only system because of eye candy smacks of both arrogance and a complete lack of understanding. It's like calling a mansion a shack because you don't like the colour of the window frames.
If you are unix power user - you should not care much about default desktop. You should customize it right away from the moment you installed _any_ distro to fit your needs.
Ubuntu do a great job of turning more people into nix environment. And it is good for you and for nix developers.
“[Our] goal is 200 million users of Ubuntu in 4 years. We’re not playing a game for developers hearts and minds – we’re playing a game for the worlds hearts and minds. and to achieve that we’re going to have to play by a new set of rules.”
Couple hundred megabytes. It's still a lot larger than Orca/C was on my Apple IIgs (1 or 2 3.5" floppies?), but then again, compilers come with a lot of libraries these days.
Does it bother you for rational or irrational reasons? It bothers me for irrational reasons - it feels like it's too much, but really, I'm using about 65 GB of a 500 GB disk. So I tell myself to ignore that feeling and just install Xcode because it's the most efficient means of getting developer tools on my Mac.
I used osx gcc installer for a bit, but had to go back to xcode when I needed things like opengl headers, which are not otherwise available. Frustrating, for sure.
I think he has no idea what he's talking about. Being user-friendly doesn't mean abandoning developers or locking up the platform. He's just another "power user" upset because his old tricks are no longer useful.
What percentage of users are developers? 5 percent? Lower? It's unwise to cater the entire OS to the needs of such a small minority especially when they are the best suited to change the environment to meet their needs. Complaining about needing to download Xcode is a perfect example of why it is wrong. If it's bundled into the OS you're wasting 4GB of space on tens of millions of machines to save the 5% a 4GB download. That makes no sense.
The big problem with Ubutunu is still that it is, no matter how much nicer they make it look, a collection of inconsistently designed user interfaces for mediocre clones of better applications on other platforms. It has no soul. It just stumbles forward feebly copying whatever else happens to be popular on other platforms. It's always going to be playing catch-up to ever moving goal posts. Unless you have some religious zeal to use OSS software there is no good reason to even consider Ubuntu over Windows or OSX.
That's the idea - make lightweight, easy development the soul of your operating system. Build the entire OS around immediately useful GUI customization and task automation, for example, to the point that everybody that uses it can do it and wants to. Kind of like If This Then That, but for the desktop.
I agree wholeheartedly with his take on this halfassed push towards poorly designed minimalism masquerading as user friendliness but I disagree that ubuntu should be some kind of developers distribution, that's never what Ubuntu was supposed to be. It's entire purpose is to be a novice distribution.
Power users should not be using it, it's not built for them.
[+] [-] div|14 years ago|reply
Anything I ever wanted is just an apt-get away and is mostly installed in a sensible way.
Ubuntu simplifying desktop features and changing defaults to be easier for users like my mom sounds like a great thing to happen to Linux.
That stuff is mostly orthogonal to developers who, you know, know how to deviate from the standard configuration and tools.
[+] [-] gue5t|14 years ago|reply
Not everyone is a kernel hacker, obviously... but Ubuntu should be proud that on Linux every user /can/ become one if they so desire. To emphasize the same read-only one-size-fits-all thinking that Apple has popularized is to disregard entirely the philosophy of the foundation on which Ubuntu exists.
The argument that Ubuntu is a pragmatic, get-things-done distribution is founded in fact; it certainly is. But that doesn't mean it has to make it worse for software development and make it difficult to actually alter your system in meaningful ways. I ran Ubuntu for over a year and every attempt to dig into the system's internals (init scripts, configuration tools, what apt actually /did/, etc.) resulted in frustration because of the great complexity and the lack of any help that the OS itself provided. Comparing distros like Arch Linux that guide their users into the system in order to make the changes they want, Ubuntu is about as read-only as I've ever seen in an open-source Linux-based system.
Even so, Arch isn't a distro for beginners by any stretch of imagination. And there I think Ubuntu has the ability to come out far ahead, if they embrace the fact that they are producing a system designed to be improved by the "end-users". A Linux distribution is not a product like a commercial software package. It's an environment that should foster both productivity and learning. To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Sure, there may be a table to craft today, but improving at the craft of doing so is an important goal--and Ubuntu should help its users improve in their usage of their systems by helping them take small, friendly steps into improving the software they use in real ways.
Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. Apple can't do that because they have to keep their users dependent. Ubuntu is missing out on its greatest source of potential.
[+] [-] Rusky|14 years ago|reply
This is a problem not for people who are already developers, because they will just install something else and move on, but for new users who won't have anything to discover.
The article said "In fact I think Linux has a tendency to encourage average computer users to become power users once they spend some time with it."
This may not be the best thing for everyone, but that's what the article was getting at.
[+] [-] aufreak3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gujk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spinchange|14 years ago|reply
I would sum up the article as such: Ubuntu needs to focus on being the best Ubuntu it can be for its users. If Ubuntu tries to be Apple (imposing arbitrary UI choices and tastes on them, with little to no recourse) it will neither be good at that or what they were good at to begin with.
[+] [-] Zak|14 years ago|reply
I think Ubuntu may be trying to move too fast. Moving fast is great if you can pull it off, but it's not worth breaking the basic functions of the OS to get a more flashy UI. If Ubuntu does want to copy Apple, there's one major thing they need to learn: Apple releases features when they're done.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|14 years ago|reply
I know well and good that Ubuntu was conceived because Shuttleworth felt that Linux was ready for the big time and that Red Hat etc had too much penchant to devote resources into low-level bickering that ultimately had relatively little effect on your average end user instead of focusing on improving user experience, but now that Ubuntu has moved the user experience so far forward, they should reconsider that mission. The places where Linux is most lacking is low-level compatibility for things like fast 3D acceleration and power management.
Canonical should use some of its funds (aka "Mark Shuttleworth's money") to buy the 100 best selling laptop models each year, set rigorous testing standards, spend six months developing a new release and then take however long is necessary to make sure that everything passes on the last three years' best selling laptops. In this process, they should not be shy about contribution to X, kernel, etc., and should distribute patched versions of these if necessary to get compatibility.
That, combined with Ubuntu's user experience work, is what will really make Linux a completely viable desktop computing platform. Far too often things break between releases and/or upgrades.
[+] [-] tung|14 years ago|reply
Releasing early and often is good. Pushing that software on people who didn't choose it is not. I feel like there should have been a "Try Unity" button at the Ubuntu installer so people like me could just wait until it's ready.
Maybe I'll be happy with Unity in two years. But in that time I'll have to suffer stuttering, lag and the whims of armchair UI theorists who think Alt-Tab should jump workspaces by default.
[+] [-] kungfooey|14 years ago|reply
I actually bought a Mac on Friday. I need a development environment that works. I don't like spending time yak-shaving when I could be solving real problems.
[+] [-] phamilton|14 years ago|reply
I almost want Ubuntu to either abandon the traditional Debian subsystem or have a "Power User" configuration where you can tell it to use /etc files over the GUI config.
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sofuture|14 years ago|reply
I, for one, applaud what they're doing, as much as it terrifies all the half-power-users (I don't mean that as a slight, I do think it's a little silly to get upset about Ubuntu's default WM and claim to 'understand UNIX').
[+] [-] Kell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shasta|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regularfry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methodin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Peaker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|14 years ago|reply
you can't please all the people all the time. at some point you have to make a decision that some use cases can't be supported, for the sake of progress. in those cases, i think dropping support for the people who need support the least is the only logical way to go.
personally, i use ubuntu (and unity too!) every day as my primary development machine (python programming and database admin), and when i come home i have it on my primary play machine too. it does what it needs to do if you are willing to adjust your workflow a little bit. and if you aren't willing to adjust your workflow at all, ever, then maybe preconfigured DEs are not for you.
[+] [-] Peaker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsc|14 years ago|reply
The problem is that unity is, well, it's garbage. If I wanted a mac, I'd buy a mac. I liked the old gnome defaults; they were pretty good. Right now? I'm on ubuntu 11.10, and I'm considering another distro.
Unity is simply unusable; It's annoying for all the reasons that the mac interface is annoying, only the whole thing is done, well, worse. Just finding a program is a huge pain in the ass. So I'm running gnome-legacy, which is okay, but still pretty annoying compared to older ubuntu versions.
So yeah; I'm pretty irritated. Not irritated enough to buy a mac, mind you, but likely irritated enough to spend some time looking at other distros, if I'm going to have to spend effort on my X setup, I'm going with a distro that is supported for more than three years.
[+] [-] skystorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LVB|14 years ago|reply
Please, phrase, go away. You're not profound anymore.
[+] [-] vacri|14 years ago|reply
Ubuntu has specifically stated that they're aiming for the layperson, not the power user. If you cut your teeth on ubuntu and want more power in your linux box... try out another distro.
[+] [-] jiggy2011|14 years ago|reply
The main advantage of Ubuntu is that it is the best supported Linux distro out there when it comes to software.
For allot of desktop centric software , supporting Linux basically means supporting Ubuntu and possibly fedora.
Nobody wants to mess with source tarballs just to install the latest video player.
I'm a developer but I still want the option to be a "dumb user" allot of the time when I'm doing tasks like using the web / playing music etc.
[+] [-] phzbOx|14 years ago|reply
Soooo, I find it weird that the author complains about Ubuntu saying it's not the right direction. We all know there are dozen of distributions and dozen of window managers. By all means, if you don't like the new updates, just take a WM more lightweight (For instance, fluxbox, awesome, stumpwm, xmonad, etc.) As for the distro, I'm using ArchLinux for a couple of years and I'm loving it.
It's not that I don't like beautiful intuitive UI; it's just that it's not for me (At least on my computers). However, I've got an iPhone and I love the fact that everything just work. But please, don't force me to use GUI everywhere on my desktop; let that for people who enjoys the everything just work.
But then, maybe I'm wrong. I assumed that Ubuntu always was axed for beginners.. Was I wrong with that assumption?
[+] [-] Cieplak|14 years ago|reply
My interpretation of the article: it would be more prudent to compete with Apple's weaknesses (developer friendliness) than to compete with their strengths (UI, zero configuration).
[+] [-] ceol|14 years ago|reply
Plus, as div said, developers live mostly in the terminal, so there isn't much that Canonical can do to cater to us. I'd rather have everything hidden from the end user but easily available to the power user via the command line.
[+] [-] rhizome31|14 years ago|reply
I've spent way to many hours helping fellow developers, friends and relatives to debug their Apple. Apple does not make things that just work irrespective of prior computer usage. People get totally lost with Apple just as they do with other environments and that is indeed irrespective of prior computer knowledge, which means so-called developers also get lost (MySQL-python anyone? Or maybe you'd rather have another slice of RMagick?)
[+] [-] TiberiusJones|14 years ago|reply
Fact of the matter is, if you don't like Unity don't bloody use it. I've never found a single thing I couldn't do in Ubuntu that would force me over to another distro. I mean sure, we could all build our own Gentoo installs from the ground up but who the hell has that sort of time on their hands?
To indicate that Ubuntu is inherently a newbie only system because of eye candy smacks of both arrogance and a complete lack of understanding. It's like calling a mansion a shack because you don't like the colour of the window frames.
[+] [-] hippich|14 years ago|reply
If you are unix power user - you should not care much about default desktop. You should customize it right away from the moment you installed _any_ distro to fit your needs.
Ubuntu do a great job of turning more people into nix environment. And it is good for you and for nix developers.
[+] [-] va_coder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comex|14 years ago|reply
As does OS X's, in addition to Perl, Ruby, PHP...
[+] [-] achiang|14 years ago|reply
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/mark-shuttleworth-deliver...
Also, re: screensavers -- upstream GNOME removed that ability, and Ubuntu inherited the behavior. From what I understand, we're putting it back.
[canonical employee, speaking on my own behalf]
[+] [-] trimbo|14 years ago|reply
The size of Xcode annoys me too, since I never use it. So I've been using this GCC install on my Mac: https://github.com/kennethreitz/osx-gcc-installer
Couple hundred megabytes. It's still a lot larger than Orca/C was on my Apple IIgs (1 or 2 3.5" floppies?), but then again, compilers come with a lot of libraries these days.
[+] [-] scott_s|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phamilton|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
The big problem with Ubutunu is still that it is, no matter how much nicer they make it look, a collection of inconsistently designed user interfaces for mediocre clones of better applications on other platforms. It has no soul. It just stumbles forward feebly copying whatever else happens to be popular on other platforms. It's always going to be playing catch-up to ever moving goal posts. Unless you have some religious zeal to use OSS software there is no good reason to even consider Ubuntu over Windows or OSX.
[+] [-] statictype|14 years ago|reply
Problem with making sweeping statements like this is that you now make it difficult to continue any sort of rational discussion.
(and so, I downvoted you for that last line even though you had some good points to make)
[+] [-] saulrh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsomaru|14 years ago|reply
Your point makes sense if you accept a 4GB download just for a compiler.
There are many Linux distro's that come with a C-compiler which are less than 4GB in total size.
[+] [-] HaloZero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshhawk|14 years ago|reply
Power users should not be using it, it's not built for them.