It's not reasonable to expect a design team to be able to function under the condition that whenever a user disagrees with the placement of a UI widget, they must either publicly justify their decision as being objectively correct or make the widget's position a user-configurable option.
There is an enormous class of design problems that have several appealing solutions, one of which is better than the others, but not so much better that it's worth the time to find it. "Where should the launcher be?" is very likely a member of this class: There probably actually is a best place for the launcher to be, but it's better to just have it in the wrong place than to have to argue about it on a bug tracker, and certainly better than having to make a configuration drop-down for it.
The entire reason you have a design team is because design-by-complaint reliably produces shitty software. Unity exists because every other Linux GUI has fallen victim to this process. Will it succeed in not being shitty? I have no idea. Ubuntu will sink or swim on the merits of its leadership. But the only way to avoid this one major failure mode is for Shuttleworth to ignore, as politely as possible, the complaints of his users.
> Unity exists because every other Linux GUI has
> fallen victim to this process
That's very debatable. According to me, Gnome 2.3 is by far the best designed UX for a desktop operating system. Like most people, I generalize based on my own limited experience, and I have seen people grow up and learn how to use a computer in Gnome who were disgusted by Windows and OSX user interfaces. Like all animals, humans can be conditioned and there's simply no such thing as "best UX for all".
Lets look at Alt+Tab functionality, which now in Unity (and Gnome3) switches between "apps" instead of windows. The problem with Unity/Gnome3 is that they're doing exactly what Shuttleworth claims to avoid. Quoting Mark:
> we're not that interested in matching functionality
> that was in Win95, especially if we think that
> functionality will get dropped in Windows 8 or 9 or 10.
Unity (and Gnome3) are both busy copying obsolete UI concepts from OSX, which itself is stuck in the 80s. I would say that they'd be better off copying Win95 instead, at least Microsoft recognized (correctly) back then that a concept of an "app" makes no sense on a modern desktop, and windows is what users want to manage, not "apps".
Mr. Shuttleworth admits to be heavily influenced by Android and iOS. That's weird to me, since desktops are ultimately very different beasts. The concept of an "app" came back from the grave only because the 1st generation of mobile devices were very weak, DOS-like if you will, at multi-tasking and IPC. So... Mr. Shuttleworth picked the wrong corpse to invigorate.
In their mindless pursuit of copying everything from OSX they didn't even bother recognizing OSX own bugs like broken virtual desktops. See, Apple themselves failed to copy them properly from Unix UIs (windows from different desktops in OSX are mistakenly combined in the same useless giant Alt+tab list). But the thing about Apple, though, is that they can afford to have an obsolete window management circa 1985 because their windows are shiny and fly around without lag, while Unity just recently learned how to scroll text smoothly.
In the end, Mr. Shuttleworth really shouldn't mention Win95 at all, which now seems to emerge as a clearly superior desktop UX of all 3, nearly 20 years after its introduction.
"But the only way to avoid this one major failure mode is for Shuttleworth to ignore, as politely as possible, the complaints of his users."
The problem is Shuttlworth can't keep his mouth shut. Personal attacks only make the situation worse. He should take a page from Apple here - "keep your mouth shut" - and produce.
I'm not a big fan of Unity, but I'm sympathetic to Shuttleworth in this matter.
After following open source projects for some years, it seems they're all eventually accused of some dark corruption - usually after making some UI change.
"You're betraying the ideals of the [project / community / founder]," the accusers say. "It used to be about giving users [freedom / choice / slightly less RAM usage]. Now it's just about [main leader of project / 'the developers' / the corporations]'s whims! Why not just give us [a setting / the old behavior / a large-scale feature]!"
Take a look at Firefox forums after every release, or Pidgin's bug tracker every time they tweak the GUI...
I disagree. Projects need these wake up calls and should listen to them much closer.
Firefox is a good example. I have used it since "Phoenix 0.1" came out. Already during "Firebird" times, users have started to complain that it is getting slower and bigger. Mozilla ignored it. It needed Google's Chrome browser to ring the bells at Mozilla and show them that the user complaints were valid after all.
Compare that with well managed projects like the Linux kernel. There its usually the BDFL who does the wake up calls, after having listened to user complaints and suggestions. Not saying that everything is perfect, but the kernel has been hugely successful for 25+ years and is still well focused.
Ubuntu OTOH has completely lost its original focus of providing an easy desktop Linux. They started pushing server versions and now suddenly smartphones. As if the desktop would disappear in the next years.
People are vocal because they contributed their time in the past while adding something to gnone, for ex, and had the decency to expose conf parameters.
Now someone with more money does a shitty job to make the UI like he likes, and don't have the decency of adding Conf parameters because it will have to suffice for everyone. After all, it's good enough for Him.
As a long-time Linux desktop user (but Ubuntu outsider) I have been watching this unfold for quite a while. I think that Mark Suttleworth is smitten by Apple and desperately wants to create a mostly free-software OSX-ish Linux distro.
He copied the anchored menu bar, moved the window controls to the left, copied exposé, copied some elements of the OSX panel, tried to improve typography, etc. Some of these were actually good developments (the Ubuntu branded font set is nice) but most of the time it just feels like a cobbled together interface.
It also seems he is trying to copy some other elements of Apple. He is eschewing customization (ostensibly) for uniformity and simplicity. And he has made Canonical's designers the top decision makers. Programmers implement. Community gets what they're fed. Usability is their ultimate trump card (as we see in this case).
This doesn't appear to be working well, though. Apple hired world class designers and payed them tons and gave them a massive amount of power. And they had Steve Jobs who would say "this sucks" when no one else would. Canonical (probably?) has pretty good designers given near-absolute power. I'm thinking there's quite a difference between "world-class" and "pretty good". Not to mention that Shuttleworth, an amazing man in his own right, is no Steve Jobs. He probably doesn't say "this sucks" enough and maybe even doesn't know what actually does suck when it comes to design and usability.
Anyways... I wish Shuttleworth well but I'm not very optimistic about Canonical's future. And I think they'd do better if he brought his own personality, creativity, and intensity to the project instead of chasing Jobs' shadow. Or maybe he should find a new leader to take his place.
It seems unfortunate to me that the Canonical designers didn't just start from the very functional, very slick Gnome 2.x releases and improved and polished them while keeping a stable base. Instead there seems to be a need to reinvent a usability paradigm that worked extremely well and gave users a lot of power while keeping a level of simplicity which, while higher than that of mobile interfaces, is in most ways appropiate for desktop interfaces.
Yes, exactly what I was thinking. You may only play the design card if your design is actually world-class. Canonical is trying to be Apple without having Apple's resources.
I think ubuntu is taking too much, doing too much. It wants to be on the phone and the tablet, and the desktop, etc. It is also a server distribution. It is also trying radical changes to become the mac osx of the linux world.
Well, it's not even a good distro at work. We're using the last two version of ubuntu, because everytime we upgrade, it breaks.
I used archlinux and I liked what it does. I expect archlinux to break and I expect archlinux to be up-to-date. Even when archlinux breaks, it's no biggie because I backed it up and it's easy to reinstall archlinux.
Ubuntu? What do I expect? Stability and up-to-date programs. Major upgrade does not implies major breakage. Now, they want me to expect Mac OSX like experience? They are now even more unsuitable for work than archlinux is.
People should just be using Debian if they want a stable system with good package management with a large repository. Archlinux is very good, but its repository is tiny compared to Debian and I trust Debian package maintainers more than pretty much any other distribution. I'm happy to install the few packages I need up-to-date, like Firefox, manually.
I used ubuntu for 5 years or so and finally moved off of it almost 2 years ago. I was a huge linux fan until i used ubuntu. Which intially was great but soon became nothing but marketing hype with one buggy broken release after another. Which just became tiresome after a while. Especially since with each release they act as if THAT release will finally fix all the bugs theyve had and linux hs had. Only to find out it hadnt done any of that.
IN my personally opinion ubuntu completely destroyed linux Because rather then there being many great distros to choose from and play with there is now really only one. In fact OpenSuse was my favorite but that became just an also ran distro that people would compare to ubuntu and but say sorry but it doesnt compare and then stick with ubuntu. Which sucks. Of course OpenSuse also had the kde problem but thats a whole other topic of discussion.
I respect that Canonical is trying to make Ubuntu an OS that regular Mac and Windows users will feel comfortable switching to. They must realize that this will alienate many long-time Linux users, but that doesn't hurt Linux as a whole, because those people can just use Debian or another distro. It's a difficult choice and I'm glad someone's doing it. I may not be using Ubuntu that much longer, but I'm not going to bitch about it.
No one seem to see that the real problem here is not Ubuntu, Unity or Gnome X.y. The real issue at stake is putting the designers on top of the decision hierarchy. It have worked well with Apple, it was in its DNA, but it is not at all in Linux DNA (neither in Google's or Amazon's or Microsoft's).
I do not mean to say design and UX and usability is not important, but still, it is a matter of priorities. If a designer decide to have transparent flapping buttons and if this make the code behind it extremely complex and if it makes impossible to customize and configure manually any parts of the system, then I would say it does not belong to Linux.
Maybe it is a case with Ubuntu. Maybe Ubuntu is a Linux for designers. Then I am wrong, and will switch to another distro. For me Ubuntu was an easy to install Linux with few driver issues, and my first step after installing it is to remove the useless Visual Effects in preferences.
There's some justification in deferring to user interface designers with respect to the vision for the interface. An authoritarian system can work, though you should be sensitive to how you present that authority. "wontfix" is socially dangerous to use.
But authority only works if you use that authority to do the right thing. Unity isn't doing that. I am in part frustrated that Unity got _worse_ with the latest Ubuntu release, and I'm frustrated that it has lots of bugs, and the interface is neither traditional nor discoverable. But even worse than these problems is the problem that Unity isn't pursuing a worthy goal. It's a rethinking of how you manage applications and files on the Linux desktop, but the Linux desktop has never been particularly functional or filled out and it falls behind further with time. The major trends we see is the desktop spiraling in on a single application, the browser, and files and media moving to the cloud. Unity is messing around with something that will never win the hearts and minds of new users, while it alienates what users there already are. I've never met someone who loves Unity! There's a couple people who accept it, and a much larger group that hates it. (Personally once I figured out to install gnome-shell I can like Ubuntu again, but Unity really did almost push me over the edge to get a Mac.)
It's not to say that a rethinking of the Linux UI is an entirely useless endevour, but Ubuntu and Canonical should not be pursuing a fantasy of a rich ecosystem of GUI apps. There are maybe a dozen relevant applications on Linux now, and that number will only get smaller. But the beauty of this is that if you just pursue an experience that encompasses those dozen applications, and you dive deep into those applications (which you can because they are all open source!) then something really neat could come out of that. I think people could get behind an idea like that, even if those same people simultaneously felt annoyed with particular changes that came from that. But it's hard to look past those problems when it feels like present usability is being compromised for a misguided fantasy.
I think a lot of people are operating under the assumption that Ubuntu is supposed to be for power users. I've used Ubuntu for years, never paid them a dime, don't ever expect to pay them a dime. This makes me suspect that maybe I'm not the person they intend to make money off of.
Far more likely they want to cut in on corporate IT, where saving $50/seat in OS licensing and $100/seat in hardware adds up to real money.
Mark already said it: if you don't like it, then don't use it. It's his money on the line, you go fork your own Unity. This is an instance of "you can't please everyone so don't even try."
While it would definitely be nice to please everyone, even merely trying to do so will seriously derail you from your own vision and design. That direction can either be yours or nobody's.
People also overestimate the effect of this kind of soloing. At worst, they will just create something nobody will use.
And if the majority of users will cease to use Unity, there will be 3rd-party packages for Gnome3 or Gnome2 or whatever it is that people want. As a critical review, if Ubuntu ever get to that point it might indeed be a good idea for Ubuntu to accept defeat and return to the mainstream. However, it is no earlier than that when we will see if they truly are stupid. And if they are, then there's a fair chance of forking and there will not only be Kubuntu and Lubuntu and ${WHATEVER}buntu but also Gubuntu.
Maybe because in addition to openness, meritocracy, democracy and equality they value other things, and they understand that insisting that all human relations be open, meritocratic, democratic or equal will hobble the pursuit of those other things.
Some participants in open-source software development underestimate the costs and the disadvantages of openness, democracy, etc. They seem convinced that if everyone would just uphold those values, everything will turn out well, and they seem impervious to evidence to the contrary.
It might be the case that if Canonical's designers and leaders get to boss the programmers around, then not enough programmers will continue to contribute to Ubuntu. But that is an empirical question that might turn on considerations other than openness and meritocracy. Maybe many programmers will continue to volunteer to help Ubuntu even if they understand that programmers and users do not have an equal voice in the direction of the project.
just install XFCE and don't worry about it. as long as the apt repositories are stable, let them play with their GUI and you can go back worry about something more interesting.
If Linux ever becomes popular on the desktop, it won't be because of Unity, that's for sure. It's a resource hog and it breaks too many established UI conventions. Unity forced me to start using the keyboard for most things.
I'll give XFCE a try. I don't want to leave Ubuntu, because I like the packages and I don't have to read a manifesto sized manual to install it or learn another package system.
Amen to that. Maybe when more people start switching to a desktop environment that is not completely braindead, the Ubuntu team will understand that they are doing something seriously wrong.
Ubuntu / Linux has far bigger problems than Unity. (Jump to point 5 for conclusion).
1. There are huge regressions.
With the upgrade to 11.10 my laptop's battery life has been cut from 5-6 hours to 2-2.5 hours. This is on an Asus UL machine that on Windows gets 10 hours.
This may be a kernel issue, but Canonical could add a lot of value by at least warning, or better, fixing/minimizing the problem. There are all kinds of boot parameter hacks, etc. to try to fix this, but it requires a lot of reboots and fiddling with internals. How about including a script to optimize these settings that is run after the upgrade?
"Linux on the desktop" is a dangerous misnomer, because on desktop computers power is not a concern. But nowadays power consumption is almost everything. Canonical already has its sights set on mobile devices, but hasn't even addressed power consumption for notebooks properly.
2. Poor communication of core functionality changes
New additions are presented and lauded in glossy detail, but removed features are not as clearly presented.
Nautilus (file manager) used to allow drag and drop copying/moving of files onto the left pane "bookmarks" folders. This was simply removed without warning, crippling quick drag and drop filing. Once again, this is "upstream", because of the Gnome/Nautilus teams' decisions, but it affects users in a noticeable way.
The initial update to Unity (11.04) removed all gnome applets, and made the time tracking software I used to use inaccessible. The upgrade to 11.10 made me lose my skype app/status indicator.
I don't care if my dock is on the left or bottom, or my open-close buttons are on the left or the right. Most of Unity's "coolness" is Compiz anyway - zoom, desktop switching, etc., so all that was available before Unity. For launching applications, gnome-do is still much faster, light-weight, and flexible (e.g. allowing creating/opening individual tomboy notes).
By communicating feature additions and subtractions better, people won't be so negatively surprised. Set proper expectations.
3. Key consumer software weaknesses
No good media creation suite. I was trying to make a photo slide show with a soundtrack a while ago, and I went through two days of installing/testing, setting up ppa's, compiling sources, etc. to get the latest versions, and nothing really works well. I mostly code, write, and use the web, so it's not mission-critical for me, but for a "consumer desktop OS", the absence of an official and well-functioning suite of applications akin to Apple's music and movie makers is a weakness.
Other apps like Evernote and a more up-to-date Skype would be nice as well.
4. What hardware does it run on flawlessly?
When you buy a computer with Windows or OS X, you know that everything will work. With Ubuntu/Linux, you don't. It's a huge stress factor before buying a new computer. Ubuntu has "certified hardware", but it's buried on some wiki page or other back page. This information should be front and center on the home page, so that I can buy something with confidence that it just works.
5. Conclusion
Ubuntu (whether Unity or Gnome) is far more usable than Windows (messy config menus, no multiple desktops, no full-screen desktop zoom, inconsistent shortcuts, etc.), and at least as good as OS X (which for example doesn't allow you to change the system's font size globally, and is less keyboard navigation friendly).
I'm considering abandoning Ubuntu again, because it can't compete on power consumption.
I am sympathetic to Canonical being annoyed by the bitchy entitlement complaints over superficial UI features (e.g., open/close buttons left or right). It's bike-shedding to the max.
That said, I think better up-front communication of changes can help set expectations. It forces the designers to reason why they are removing/changing/adding something. This doesn't have to lead to drawn out discussions, but some design decisions seem to be "shot from the hip" without realizing that they may affect/ruin thousands of people's work flow.
Lastly, there are huge issues like power consumption and predictable hardware compatibility that currently heavily weigh against Ubuntu/Linux.
#3 is one of my biggest gripes, in general. The Gimp is one of the worst products I've ever taken the time to try to learn. I'm not just tweaking photos, I'm trying to do some work as a professional, working on files given to me by other professionals. Forget about trying to open a PSD with more than a couple layers on it. Don't even bother.
And the interface... I don't mind spending a week or two learning an interface if it will allow me to get the job done, but The Gimp makes me want blood. Decent media software is the ONLY reason I keep a Virtual Box image of Windows 7 on my drive. Well, that and the occasional browser testing, but I find that's less of an issue in recent years.
As for hardware, I've run into Very few problems on a few DIY systems and laptops / netbooks. Graphics compatibility has always been an enormous issue. Especially multi-card for 3+ monitors. I assure you it's possible, as I've done it a couple times, but I tend to fall into a slight depression once the battle of getting it to work is over. Otherwise, I've been incredibly lucky. Install and go.
The battery issue is a major one. I've found that Lubuntu keeps up well on my netbook, and I rarely unplug my work notebook, so I don't run into it much, but you're spot on about the importance of getting that right, or at least making the correction simple.
Regarding #1, it's not necessarily a kernel problem. One bloated program running in the background could be using a bit too much CPU and disk. "Modern" desktop environments love those programs, for some reason.
It could be a lack of support for a specific advanced power-saving feature at kernel level, but that wouldn't be my first guess..
Concerning power consumption. As you already figured out, it's not an issue with Ubuntu, it's an issue with drivers and hardware compatibility. I too run an ASUS laptop, and initially I got very bad mileage. However, after some tweaks (enable a feature in the graphics driver, disable secondary graphics card, work-around buggy BIOS, etc) I got pretty much the promised 8 h.
For those frustrated with Shuttleworth's attitude and with the massive step backwards in stability and usability that is Unity, try Linux Mint. I had to go through a lot of painful, time-wasting experiments to arrive at that advice.
These sorts of complaints seem so absurdly dramatic. I don't understand the reasoning behind them. They somehow bring up an eerie image in my head of someone holding their spouse hostage in the basement for lightly mentioning that they wanted to take a photography class. "No, dear, you're not allowed to be anything besides what you were the day I met you. Change is not in the cards for you, unless I make those changes". Creepy.
That overbearing spouse deserves to be left in the dust immediately, and maybe some of these old users do as well. Not that they would be truly left behind, considering the vast landscape of other equally expensive options available requiring just as much effort to install - or MORE, if that's your thing.
We've been talking about bringing Linux to the desktop for more than a decade. And it's not even close. So a company comes along and says: Listenting to you guys isn't working, so we're going to try something else. And now they're somehow considered the antithesis to Linux. What is "Bringing Linux to the masses" supposed to mean? Making all computer users around the world cantakerous curmudgeons who can change every pixel any graphical interface can ever hope to offer? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that world. I like Linux geeks, and consider myself one, but I also like all the people in my life who will never even care what Linux is.
And maybe there is a way to the masses via the old ways. I implore you to invest your time and money to find out. I would honestly love to watch that unfold, and I'd probably install that version as well to see if it fits me. In the meantime, I'm going to be happily using Ubuntu everywhere, as I am now - on my 2 year old DIY desktop with 2 giant 27" monitors (worked upon first install, with no proprietary drivers - 3 screens: not so easy), on my television (DIY home theater running xbmc - hdmi audio and video - also worked upon first install - no proprietary), and on my laptop at work (thinkpad, also worked immediately), and of course, on a couple servers at various stages of deploy.
As unpopular as the opinion may be around here, I really enjoy using Unity. It's new and obviously imperfect, but it's one of the better user experiences I've found on Linux. I felt the old gnome 2 desktop was a step back from Windows 7 when I switched my media center to it last year. It looked as though I was installing software from 15 years in the past, trying to fit into a world that had an inch of dust on top of it.
I like the windows-7-like dock bar in Unity. I like that searching for apps via keyboard is king (although the sorting sucks, sorting by usage is essential). Not a huge fan of the omni-preset menu bar, but it's not really THAT big of a deal (admittedly having 2 giant screens makes that possible). I don't give a damn about screensavers, as I haven't used one since flying toasters were the in thing. Truth be told, I spend far too much making things ON Linux to care much about Linux itself. And that's the way it should be. At least that's the only way I can stand to use Linux on every single computer I own.
The issue here is a lack of communication. For example in LedgerSMB, we get occasional users asking for MySQL support. We send them a (lengthy) canned response detailing why MySQL support is not on our priority list and in fact why we wouldn't accept patches if they were written. We politely advise people to look for other accounting programs if this doesn't seem desirable to them. Pretty soon we got fewer and fewer. People could see what our position was, why it wasn't open to debate, and so forth.
But reading a lot of this what I see is "won't fix. Sorry, against our design" with no attempt to either leave the door open for future changes or figure out what the user wants. Better approaches include a long-term feature requests queue or some other way of preserving feedback for later review during design sessions, or a canned response which details why a category of feature requests is unwelcome and inviting further discussion of what could be done instead. If it is not applicable, the user ideally should be challenged and asked to justify why they need what they say they need before the bug is marked wont-fix with no discussion.
I remember Rob Pardo reflecting on criticism World of Warcraft received before initial launch. A lot of the Everquest players thought getting to max level was too easy and didn't require enough of a time sink. Rob pointed out that there was little value in focusing on players who had that much time to spend on a game, and they had to let those players go. It's tough, from a commercial and critical perspective, to say he was incorrect. WoW brought MMOs to the masses in a way nothing else has.
Letting go of users can be hard. Being the user that's getting let go of is harder.
But isn't there some tacit agreement, or expectation that long-time users and active members will not have to abandon years of investment in a platform -- on a whim of the provider? Of course, the designers are entitled to make their changes... but at the expense of the (supportive) user community? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but providers would not exist were it not for the demand created by the community. It's true that displeased community members can abandon ship, but they have a right to be angry (in the understanding that they entered a provider-user arrangement upon a "gentleman's agreement" as stated above).
I really appreciated this comment, not because of what it says about Unity, but because of the analogy you used. It's like this girl I dated for 2 years, saying "What, you want to take up yoga? Is it just because you want to start at other girls' asses?" Pretty glad I got out of that relationship.
This reminds me of a fight in a church about how high on the wall the cross should be hanging.
Bitter arguments among side-stream groups (church-goers, linux-users) are a much bigger reason why these groups do not attract mainstream audiences then what it is they're fighting about.
Unity, Gnome, and KDE are all headed towards a more Mac-like UI because Apple is the most lauded software design company in the world.
Like church-goers, Linux users should be supporting and celebrating innovation in design that are meant to increase use in the software. If such innovation was more broadly celebrated for its own sake, then it is much more likely that one of the major players would be willing to risk new design decisions - to really experiment with the UI. Instead, the same changes are all adopted by the major players because trying something too different will get your ridiculed, and that leads to losing early adopters, and that leads to a diminishing user base.
If you want to see Linux become more mainstream so that a generation of computer users can have a little more software freedom, then join the discussion by celebrating experimentation instead of condemning it.
The question is, has Apple "solved" UI? Some might argue that they have succeeded on mobile devices. But what about the Desktop? In my opinion, the desktop is still a ghetto. Be it Windows, Ubuntu or OS X. Open a couple of applications and documents and well, OS X crumbles from a UX point of view. Do I need to see all open Finders, applications and open docs when I should be getting stuff done? Multi-tasking leads to high complexity and the visual organization of all the information seems to be unresolved problem.
Secondly, is it worth wile to bring the mobile experience to the desktop?
This is a philosophical battle. Apple has the ability to make decisions without resorting to committee politics.
Shuttleworth is trying to gain some of this advantage for Ubuntu.
It might seem dictatorial, but I think he's got a point .. if Ubuntu is going to innovate and create differentiation from other OSs it needs to change. An element of faith is needed to allow that change to occur.
The debate over where to place a particular widget or what bits of the user interface are customizable seems off-target to me. What struck me most was the fact that we had a polite community member doing his best to describe a problem that he was very concerned about. He felt that people in the community of Ubuntu users were feeling ignored and he suggested that an easy solution would be to provide more detail on why a particular issue in Launchpad is flagged as "wontfix". While the effectiveness of this solution is debatable, Canonical focused on how the community feels selfish and entitled. Ironically, instead of Canonical clearly explaining to this community member why they wouldn't be more descriptive on issues flagged as "wontfix", the discussion degraded into just the sort of name calling and posturing that this community member was attempting to alleviate.
" the discussion degraded into just the sort of name calling and posturing that this community member was attempting to alleviate"
It might be enlightening to read the comments on the bug dispassionately and see where the name calling and posturing is coming from and where it is not.
I appreciate the direction Canonical is taking Ubuntu. I neither condone nor condemn it; it is a valid direction to take software development.
However, the direction does not seem to line up with typical open source hacker goals (it's very hard to adjust unity even in the smallest ways, and there seems to be some number of breaks from typical conventions, e.g., breaking xscreensaver), which is one of the key values of the Linux world. That, I believe, is the controversy here.
I use Bodhi at home, and have been real happy with it.
Ubuntu has always been about targeting the mainstream as far as I can tell. They do a good job of it, and there's plenty of other options for those who think otherwise.
I guess I'm confused about the whole issue. Personally I hate Unity, which is why I installed Gnome 2. Isn't that the point of Linux? Being able to customize it to your liking?
Agreed, I think Ubuntu is still a great distro for 'just working' on most machines I've installed it on. I dislike Unity too, so I install a couple of packages, grab my xmonad config file from github and get back to work.
[+] [-] goodside|14 years ago|reply
There is an enormous class of design problems that have several appealing solutions, one of which is better than the others, but not so much better that it's worth the time to find it. "Where should the launcher be?" is very likely a member of this class: There probably actually is a best place for the launcher to be, but it's better to just have it in the wrong place than to have to argue about it on a bug tracker, and certainly better than having to make a configuration drop-down for it.
The entire reason you have a design team is because design-by-complaint reliably produces shitty software. Unity exists because every other Linux GUI has fallen victim to this process. Will it succeed in not being shitty? I have no idea. Ubuntu will sink or swim on the merits of its leadership. But the only way to avoid this one major failure mode is for Shuttleworth to ignore, as politely as possible, the complaints of his users.
[+] [-] old-gregg|14 years ago|reply
Lets look at Alt+Tab functionality, which now in Unity (and Gnome3) switches between "apps" instead of windows. The problem with Unity/Gnome3 is that they're doing exactly what Shuttleworth claims to avoid. Quoting Mark:
Unity (and Gnome3) are both busy copying obsolete UI concepts from OSX, which itself is stuck in the 80s. I would say that they'd be better off copying Win95 instead, at least Microsoft recognized (correctly) back then that a concept of an "app" makes no sense on a modern desktop, and windows is what users want to manage, not "apps".Mr. Shuttleworth admits to be heavily influenced by Android and iOS. That's weird to me, since desktops are ultimately very different beasts. The concept of an "app" came back from the grave only because the 1st generation of mobile devices were very weak, DOS-like if you will, at multi-tasking and IPC. So... Mr. Shuttleworth picked the wrong corpse to invigorate.
In their mindless pursuit of copying everything from OSX they didn't even bother recognizing OSX own bugs like broken virtual desktops. See, Apple themselves failed to copy them properly from Unix UIs (windows from different desktops in OSX are mistakenly combined in the same useless giant Alt+tab list). But the thing about Apple, though, is that they can afford to have an obsolete window management circa 1985 because their windows are shiny and fly around without lag, while Unity just recently learned how to scroll text smoothly.
In the end, Mr. Shuttleworth really shouldn't mention Win95 at all, which now seems to emerge as a clearly superior desktop UX of all 3, nearly 20 years after its introduction.
[+] [-] crag|14 years ago|reply
The problem is Shuttlworth can't keep his mouth shut. Personal attacks only make the situation worse. He should take a page from Apple here - "keep your mouth shut" - and produce.
[+] [-] Bo102010|14 years ago|reply
After following open source projects for some years, it seems they're all eventually accused of some dark corruption - usually after making some UI change.
"You're betraying the ideals of the [project / community / founder]," the accusers say. "It used to be about giving users [freedom / choice / slightly less RAM usage]. Now it's just about [main leader of project / 'the developers' / the corporations]'s whims! Why not just give us [a setting / the old behavior / a large-scale feature]!"
Take a look at Firefox forums after every release, or Pidgin's bug tracker every time they tweak the GUI...
It reminds me of an older Less Wrong article - (http://lesswrong.com/lw/uu/why_does_power_corrupt/).
Now, it could be that all projects are slowly decaying into [ego / corporate / dictatorial designer]-centric tarpits, but I kind of doubt it.
[+] [-] yaix|14 years ago|reply
Firefox is a good example. I have used it since "Phoenix 0.1" came out. Already during "Firebird" times, users have started to complain that it is getting slower and bigger. Mozilla ignored it. It needed Google's Chrome browser to ring the bells at Mozilla and show them that the user complaints were valid after all.
Compare that with well managed projects like the Linux kernel. There its usually the BDFL who does the wake up calls, after having listened to user complaints and suggestions. Not saying that everything is perfect, but the kernel has been hugely successful for 25+ years and is still well focused.
Ubuntu OTOH has completely lost its original focus of providing an easy desktop Linux. They started pushing server versions and now suddenly smartphones. As if the desktop would disappear in the next years.
[+] [-] gcb|14 years ago|reply
Now someone with more money does a shitty job to make the UI like he likes, and don't have the decency of adding Conf parameters because it will have to suffice for everyone. After all, it's good enough for Him.
[+] [-] naner|14 years ago|reply
He copied the anchored menu bar, moved the window controls to the left, copied exposé, copied some elements of the OSX panel, tried to improve typography, etc. Some of these were actually good developments (the Ubuntu branded font set is nice) but most of the time it just feels like a cobbled together interface.
It also seems he is trying to copy some other elements of Apple. He is eschewing customization (ostensibly) for uniformity and simplicity. And he has made Canonical's designers the top decision makers. Programmers implement. Community gets what they're fed. Usability is their ultimate trump card (as we see in this case).
This doesn't appear to be working well, though. Apple hired world class designers and payed them tons and gave them a massive amount of power. And they had Steve Jobs who would say "this sucks" when no one else would. Canonical (probably?) has pretty good designers given near-absolute power. I'm thinking there's quite a difference between "world-class" and "pretty good". Not to mention that Shuttleworth, an amazing man in his own right, is no Steve Jobs. He probably doesn't say "this sucks" enough and maybe even doesn't know what actually does suck when it comes to design and usability.
Anyways... I wish Shuttleworth well but I'm not very optimistic about Canonical's future. And I think they'd do better if he brought his own personality, creativity, and intensity to the project instead of chasing Jobs' shadow. Or maybe he should find a new leader to take his place.
[+] [-] Daishiman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sharlin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|14 years ago|reply
Well, it's not even a good distro at work. We're using the last two version of ubuntu, because everytime we upgrade, it breaks.
I used archlinux and I liked what it does. I expect archlinux to break and I expect archlinux to be up-to-date. Even when archlinux breaks, it's no biggie because I backed it up and it's easy to reinstall archlinux.
Ubuntu? What do I expect? Stability and up-to-date programs. Major upgrade does not implies major breakage. Now, they want me to expect Mac OSX like experience? They are now even more unsuitable for work than archlinux is.
[+] [-] oinksoft|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clojurerocks|14 years ago|reply
IN my personally opinion ubuntu completely destroyed linux Because rather then there being many great distros to choose from and play with there is now really only one. In fact OpenSuse was my favorite but that became just an also ran distro that people would compare to ubuntu and but say sorry but it doesnt compare and then stick with ubuntu. Which sucks. Of course OpenSuse also had the kde problem but thats a whole other topic of discussion.
[+] [-] rfugger|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbog|14 years ago|reply
I do not mean to say design and UX and usability is not important, but still, it is a matter of priorities. If a designer decide to have transparent flapping buttons and if this make the code behind it extremely complex and if it makes impossible to customize and configure manually any parts of the system, then I would say it does not belong to Linux.
Maybe it is a case with Ubuntu. Maybe Ubuntu is a Linux for designers. Then I am wrong, and will switch to another distro. For me Ubuntu was an easy to install Linux with few driver issues, and my first step after installing it is to remove the useless Visual Effects in preferences.
[+] [-] jiggy2011|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianb|14 years ago|reply
But authority only works if you use that authority to do the right thing. Unity isn't doing that. I am in part frustrated that Unity got _worse_ with the latest Ubuntu release, and I'm frustrated that it has lots of bugs, and the interface is neither traditional nor discoverable. But even worse than these problems is the problem that Unity isn't pursuing a worthy goal. It's a rethinking of how you manage applications and files on the Linux desktop, but the Linux desktop has never been particularly functional or filled out and it falls behind further with time. The major trends we see is the desktop spiraling in on a single application, the browser, and files and media moving to the cloud. Unity is messing around with something that will never win the hearts and minds of new users, while it alienates what users there already are. I've never met someone who loves Unity! There's a couple people who accept it, and a much larger group that hates it. (Personally once I figured out to install gnome-shell I can like Ubuntu again, but Unity really did almost push me over the edge to get a Mac.)
It's not to say that a rethinking of the Linux UI is an entirely useless endevour, but Ubuntu and Canonical should not be pursuing a fantasy of a rich ecosystem of GUI apps. There are maybe a dozen relevant applications on Linux now, and that number will only get smaller. But the beauty of this is that if you just pursue an experience that encompasses those dozen applications, and you dive deep into those applications (which you can because they are all open source!) then something really neat could come out of that. I think people could get behind an idea like that, even if those same people simultaneously felt annoyed with particular changes that came from that. But it's hard to look past those problems when it feels like present usability is being compromised for a misguided fantasy.
[+] [-] kevinpet|14 years ago|reply
Far more likely they want to cut in on corporate IT, where saving $50/seat in OS licensing and $100/seat in hardware adds up to real money.
[+] [-] yason|14 years ago|reply
While it would definitely be nice to please everyone, even merely trying to do so will seriously derail you from your own vision and design. That direction can either be yours or nobody's.
People also overestimate the effect of this kind of soloing. At worst, they will just create something nobody will use.
And if the majority of users will cease to use Unity, there will be 3rd-party packages for Gnome3 or Gnome2 or whatever it is that people want. As a critical review, if Ubuntu ever get to that point it might indeed be a good idea for Ubuntu to accept defeat and return to the mainstream. However, it is no earlier than that when we will see if they truly are stupid. And if they are, then there's a fair chance of forking and there will not only be Kubuntu and Lubuntu and ${WHATEVER}buntu but also Gubuntu.
[+] [-] sciurus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|14 years ago|reply
Some participants in open-source software development underestimate the costs and the disadvantages of openness, democracy, etc. They seem convinced that if everyone would just uphold those values, everything will turn out well, and they seem impervious to evidence to the contrary.
It might be the case that if Canonical's designers and leaders get to boss the programmers around, then not enough programmers will continue to contribute to Ubuntu. But that is an empirical question that might turn on considerations other than openness and meritocracy. Maybe many programmers will continue to volunteer to help Ubuntu even if they understand that programmers and users do not have an equal voice in the direction of the project.
[+] [-] annomination|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technomancy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apg|14 years ago|reply
I'll give XFCE a try. I don't want to leave Ubuntu, because I like the packages and I don't have to read a manifesto sized manual to install it or learn another package system.
[+] [-] mr_dev4|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javadyan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsanchez1|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasboot|14 years ago|reply
Ubuntu / Linux has far bigger problems than Unity. (Jump to point 5 for conclusion).
1. There are huge regressions.
With the upgrade to 11.10 my laptop's battery life has been cut from 5-6 hours to 2-2.5 hours. This is on an Asus UL machine that on Windows gets 10 hours.
This may be a kernel issue, but Canonical could add a lot of value by at least warning, or better, fixing/minimizing the problem. There are all kinds of boot parameter hacks, etc. to try to fix this, but it requires a lot of reboots and fiddling with internals. How about including a script to optimize these settings that is run after the upgrade?
"Linux on the desktop" is a dangerous misnomer, because on desktop computers power is not a concern. But nowadays power consumption is almost everything. Canonical already has its sights set on mobile devices, but hasn't even addressed power consumption for notebooks properly.
2. Poor communication of core functionality changes
New additions are presented and lauded in glossy detail, but removed features are not as clearly presented.
Nautilus (file manager) used to allow drag and drop copying/moving of files onto the left pane "bookmarks" folders. This was simply removed without warning, crippling quick drag and drop filing. Once again, this is "upstream", because of the Gnome/Nautilus teams' decisions, but it affects users in a noticeable way.
The initial update to Unity (11.04) removed all gnome applets, and made the time tracking software I used to use inaccessible. The upgrade to 11.10 made me lose my skype app/status indicator.
I don't care if my dock is on the left or bottom, or my open-close buttons are on the left or the right. Most of Unity's "coolness" is Compiz anyway - zoom, desktop switching, etc., so all that was available before Unity. For launching applications, gnome-do is still much faster, light-weight, and flexible (e.g. allowing creating/opening individual tomboy notes).
By communicating feature additions and subtractions better, people won't be so negatively surprised. Set proper expectations.
3. Key consumer software weaknesses
No good media creation suite. I was trying to make a photo slide show with a soundtrack a while ago, and I went through two days of installing/testing, setting up ppa's, compiling sources, etc. to get the latest versions, and nothing really works well. I mostly code, write, and use the web, so it's not mission-critical for me, but for a "consumer desktop OS", the absence of an official and well-functioning suite of applications akin to Apple's music and movie makers is a weakness.
Other apps like Evernote and a more up-to-date Skype would be nice as well.
4. What hardware does it run on flawlessly?
When you buy a computer with Windows or OS X, you know that everything will work. With Ubuntu/Linux, you don't. It's a huge stress factor before buying a new computer. Ubuntu has "certified hardware", but it's buried on some wiki page or other back page. This information should be front and center on the home page, so that I can buy something with confidence that it just works.
5. Conclusion
Ubuntu (whether Unity or Gnome) is far more usable than Windows (messy config menus, no multiple desktops, no full-screen desktop zoom, inconsistent shortcuts, etc.), and at least as good as OS X (which for example doesn't allow you to change the system's font size globally, and is less keyboard navigation friendly).
I'm considering abandoning Ubuntu again, because it can't compete on power consumption.
I am sympathetic to Canonical being annoyed by the bitchy entitlement complaints over superficial UI features (e.g., open/close buttons left or right). It's bike-shedding to the max.
That said, I think better up-front communication of changes can help set expectations. It forces the designers to reason why they are removing/changing/adding something. This doesn't have to lead to drawn out discussions, but some design decisions seem to be "shot from the hip" without realizing that they may affect/ruin thousands of people's work flow.
Lastly, there are huge issues like power consumption and predictable hardware compatibility that currently heavily weigh against Ubuntu/Linux.
[+] [-] enobrev|14 years ago|reply
And the interface... I don't mind spending a week or two learning an interface if it will allow me to get the job done, but The Gimp makes me want blood. Decent media software is the ONLY reason I keep a Virtual Box image of Windows 7 on my drive. Well, that and the occasional browser testing, but I find that's less of an issue in recent years.
As for hardware, I've run into Very few problems on a few DIY systems and laptops / netbooks. Graphics compatibility has always been an enormous issue. Especially multi-card for 3+ monitors. I assure you it's possible, as I've done it a couple times, but I tend to fall into a slight depression once the battle of getting it to work is over. Otherwise, I've been incredibly lucky. Install and go.
The battery issue is a major one. I've found that Lubuntu keeps up well on my netbook, and I rarely unplug my work notebook, so I don't run into it much, but you're spot on about the importance of getting that right, or at least making the correction simple.
Fine points, overall.
[+] [-] Wilya|14 years ago|reply
It could be a lack of support for a specific advanced power-saving feature at kernel level, but that wouldn't be my first guess..
[+] [-] jadahl|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sutro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enobrev|14 years ago|reply
That overbearing spouse deserves to be left in the dust immediately, and maybe some of these old users do as well. Not that they would be truly left behind, considering the vast landscape of other equally expensive options available requiring just as much effort to install - or MORE, if that's your thing.
We've been talking about bringing Linux to the desktop for more than a decade. And it's not even close. So a company comes along and says: Listenting to you guys isn't working, so we're going to try something else. And now they're somehow considered the antithesis to Linux. What is "Bringing Linux to the masses" supposed to mean? Making all computer users around the world cantakerous curmudgeons who can change every pixel any graphical interface can ever hope to offer? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that world. I like Linux geeks, and consider myself one, but I also like all the people in my life who will never even care what Linux is.
And maybe there is a way to the masses via the old ways. I implore you to invest your time and money to find out. I would honestly love to watch that unfold, and I'd probably install that version as well to see if it fits me. In the meantime, I'm going to be happily using Ubuntu everywhere, as I am now - on my 2 year old DIY desktop with 2 giant 27" monitors (worked upon first install, with no proprietary drivers - 3 screens: not so easy), on my television (DIY home theater running xbmc - hdmi audio and video - also worked upon first install - no proprietary), and on my laptop at work (thinkpad, also worked immediately), and of course, on a couple servers at various stages of deploy.
As unpopular as the opinion may be around here, I really enjoy using Unity. It's new and obviously imperfect, but it's one of the better user experiences I've found on Linux. I felt the old gnome 2 desktop was a step back from Windows 7 when I switched my media center to it last year. It looked as though I was installing software from 15 years in the past, trying to fit into a world that had an inch of dust on top of it.
I like the windows-7-like dock bar in Unity. I like that searching for apps via keyboard is king (although the sorting sucks, sorting by usage is essential). Not a huge fan of the omni-preset menu bar, but it's not really THAT big of a deal (admittedly having 2 giant screens makes that possible). I don't give a damn about screensavers, as I haven't used one since flying toasters were the in thing. Truth be told, I spend far too much making things ON Linux to care much about Linux itself. And that's the way it should be. At least that's the only way I can stand to use Linux on every single computer I own.
[+] [-] einhverfr|14 years ago|reply
But reading a lot of this what I see is "won't fix. Sorry, against our design" with no attempt to either leave the door open for future changes or figure out what the user wants. Better approaches include a long-term feature requests queue or some other way of preserving feedback for later review during design sessions, or a canned response which details why a category of feature requests is unwelcome and inviting further discussion of what could be done instead. If it is not applicable, the user ideally should be challenged and asked to justify why they need what they say they need before the bug is marked wont-fix with no discussion.
[+] [-] madrox|14 years ago|reply
I remember Rob Pardo reflecting on criticism World of Warcraft received before initial launch. A lot of the Everquest players thought getting to max level was too easy and didn't require enough of a time sink. Rob pointed out that there was little value in focusing on players who had that much time to spend on a game, and they had to let those players go. It's tough, from a commercial and critical perspective, to say he was incorrect. WoW brought MMOs to the masses in a way nothing else has.
Letting go of users can be hard. Being the user that's getting let go of is harder.
[+] [-] probably|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|14 years ago|reply
Sure, that's a valid way to work. He should have started off by saying that, rather than building a large, vocal, community and then ignoring them.
[+] [-] daveungerer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucian1900|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] padobson|14 years ago|reply
Bitter arguments among side-stream groups (church-goers, linux-users) are a much bigger reason why these groups do not attract mainstream audiences then what it is they're fighting about.
Unity, Gnome, and KDE are all headed towards a more Mac-like UI because Apple is the most lauded software design company in the world.
Like church-goers, Linux users should be supporting and celebrating innovation in design that are meant to increase use in the software. If such innovation was more broadly celebrated for its own sake, then it is much more likely that one of the major players would be willing to risk new design decisions - to really experiment with the UI. Instead, the same changes are all adopted by the major players because trying something too different will get your ridiculed, and that leads to losing early adopters, and that leads to a diminishing user base.
If you want to see Linux become more mainstream so that a generation of computer users can have a little more software freedom, then join the discussion by celebrating experimentation instead of condemning it.
[+] [-] kitsune_|14 years ago|reply
Secondly, is it worth wile to bring the mobile experience to the desktop?
[+] [-] lwhi|14 years ago|reply
Shuttleworth is trying to gain some of this advantage for Ubuntu.
It might seem dictatorial, but I think he's got a point .. if Ubuntu is going to innovate and create differentiation from other OSs it needs to change. An element of faith is needed to allow that change to occur.
[+] [-] cmiles74|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fader|14 years ago|reply
It might be enlightening to read the comments on the bug dispassionately and see where the name calling and posturing is coming from and where it is not.
[+] [-] pnathan|14 years ago|reply
However, the direction does not seem to line up with typical open source hacker goals (it's very hard to adjust unity even in the smallest ways, and there seems to be some number of breaks from typical conventions, e.g., breaking xscreensaver), which is one of the key values of the Linux world. That, I believe, is the controversy here.
I use Bodhi at home, and have been real happy with it.
[+] [-] jfoster|14 years ago|reply
Ubuntu has always been about targeting the mainstream as far as I can tell. They do a good job of it, and there's plenty of other options for those who think otherwise.
[+] [-] midwestwebdev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alinajaf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|14 years ago|reply