3 ms·

> ...over more modern ones. No, for many of us it is not about modern. I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be

> ...over more modern ones. No, for many of us it is not about modern. I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason. Now hear me out: I almost love Apple, I just cannot get myself to use their products (OK, did, three years, was happy to get a PC again) and there are a lot of things that should be learned from Mac. Out-of-the-box experience etc. Other Mac-isms are just bad IMO like inconsistent keyboard shortcuts, Alt-Tab that is not a consistent stack etc. Ubuntu copied the dock, moved Window control to the left, messed with the menus and Alt-Tab all while delivering a less impressing OOTB experience (IIRC).

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason." There is a very good reason for the direction Ubuntu went with Unity. The clue is in the name. The Unity interface is the way it is because it's designed to work on both large screen devices and small screen devices, and with mouse and keyboard and touchscreens. Take a look at the Ubuntu Touch interface, notice how similar it is to the UI on desktop Ubuntu (side menu, scopes, etc...)? http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features
- nycticorax 11y ago
  I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels like a huge mistake in all cases. I use my desktop all day. I want an experience tailored to the desktop, not some compromise experience that's not-too-bad on the desktop and not-too-bad on a touch device. All these orgs made this huge bet that you could make a one-size-fits-all experience, and so far I'd say the results are not promising at all. Apple took the opposite tack: have a desktop UI and a touch UI, and allow them to diverge. And that seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well. Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer? FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
    - nycticorax 11y ago
      It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what. It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.
digi_owl 11y ago
Funny, if anyone is copying the OSX UI it is Gnome.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason." There is a very good reason for the direction Ubuntu went with Unity. The clue is in the name. The Unity interface is the way it is because it's designed to work on both large screen devices and small screen devices, and with mouse and keyboard and touchscreens. Take a look at the Ubuntu Touch interface, notice how similar it is to the UI on desktop Ubuntu (side menu, scopes, etc...)? http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features

nycticorax 11y ago
I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels like a huge mistake in all cases. I use my desktop all day. I want an experience tailored to the desktop, not some compromise experience that's not-too-bad on the desktop and not-too-bad on a touch device. All these orgs made this huge bet that you could make a one-size-fits-all experience, and so far I'd say the results are not promising at all. Apple took the opposite tack: have a desktop UI and a touch UI, and allow them to diverge. And that seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well. Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer? FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
  - nycticorax 11y ago
    It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what. It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.

digi_owl 11y ago

Funny, if anyone is copying the OSX UI it is Gnome.