6 ms·

Unity (and many other Linux UI projects really) current state: reinventing the wheel, with chances of hitting a usability sweet spot just before the next rewrit

by tga 10y ago

Unity (and many other Linux UI projects really) current state: reinventing the wheel, with chances of hitting a usability sweet spot just before the next rewrite. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guide_to_X11/Window_Managers https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guide_to_X11/Window_Managers

erelde 10y ago
That link is about "window managers" which are different from "desktop environments". I agree though that Unity (in particular but not limited to) tries very hard to reinvent the wheel every 2 years.
- ronnybrendel2 10y ago
  I am a KDE user for 10 years now and I can't emphasize enough how annoyed I am about this. Every major release breaks something. And it takes months and years for seemingly basic things to come back, if they come back at all. For example Shift+Del for files on the desktop https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344969 https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344969 . Right now I am especially pissed about the state of multi-monitor support for my Thinkpad + docking station. It is completely broken since KDE 5. I can't undock, dock, suspend + combinations without everything crashing. (That means I can't carry my laptop around the office.) KDE also has troubles arranging the desktops, keeping task bars on the correct monitor, or starting the desktop correctly at all. The middle mouse button of the external keyboard doesn't work after suspend. If I have two external monitors the frame rate drops significantly and I get screen tearing while moving windows around (Not sure whose fault that is. Maybe graphics drivers.) Etc. :( I know, open source, payment, free time. You can't really blame anyone for this. The incentives and accountability, like for commercial products, aren't there. With Microsoft's wish to be more like Google and the new telemetry features, I am either looking for a Mac next time or at least move to Gnome or Unity. What also sucks is that these issues lead to me only using a small subset of programs like console, browser and gimp (no fancy editor, no mail client) to avoid anything important I use breaking.
  - cyberpunk 10y ago
    Do you really need kde at all then? I started using a much more minimal setup (dwm) because of a similar experience and everything is rock solid, it's so refreshing! I was on mac for years as it stayed out of my way for most of the time but that stopped being true in the last few years -- maybe get a loaner and try it for a bit before you commit to it; I can imagine swapping out of frustration just to find your new setup is equally annoying wouldn't be fun!
- Lintaris 10y ago
  There are no significant differences between versions of Unity. The functionality remains the same.
blfr 10y ago
Unity 8 looks a lot like Unity 7 which I use daily. While a lot is changing underneath there's definitely a feeling of continuation in the user experience. The 3d desktop effects, however, don't seem to be the future. I loved the Compiz cube when if first came out and it impressed onlookers at the time but these things don't add to your enjoyment of using the system after a (fairly short) and they never make using it easier.
- curt15 10y ago
  However I do notice that in Unity 8, windows stick perfectly to the cursor when they are being moved.
  - reddotX 10y ago
    yep and i'm running this on an old celeron and i'm using mirscreencast and then pipe to ffmpeg to record the video. so what you see is unity8 running on old hardware and with cpu load at 100% :D
- tvmalsv 10y ago
  I have to admit I still like and use the Compiz cube, but what I really like is the Wobbly Windows effect. It may seem cheesy to many, but it's oddly satisfying to me. And it's really smooth even in VirtualBox.
  - loudmax 10y ago
    I love my wobbly windows. It's an effect that you can only do on an open source desktop. I don't doubt that Microsoft or Apple could implement wobbly windows if they really wanted to, but it's a silly effect and servers no real purpose, so they don't. It's a bit of bling that makes my desktop look futuristic when I drag terminal windows around.
- Lintaris 10y ago
  Unity 7 works on X11 and Unity 8 is the new version to work on the new desktop server. I think it is on purpose to be as similar as possible.
szastupov 10y ago
At least others agreed to eventually settle on Wayland, while Canonical is really reinventing the wheel with Mir.
- bitwize 10y ago
  I get the feeling that as soon as Wayland gets significant uptake and starts being less than broken for most users, it will instantly be replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable. The OSS community seems to view constant change -- and churn -- as an inherent good.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    Right, because two protocols in 32 years is "constant change".
    - kefka 10y ago
      Nahh, that's not why. They got rid of the idea of the X protocol and network transparency. I like being able to log in to remove Linux machines, and run programs that show up locally on my desktop. And since it's not some framebuffer, I know the X commands are being send and then rendering on my side. That's loads better than some dumb pixel maps. And X is extensible. Plugins aren't easy to write, but you can do it. We have Screen for X (Xpra), mpX (multiple pointer/keyboard), OpenGL, and loads more. Yeah, some could be considered cruft, or multiple ways to do the same thing, but that's the Unix Way.
      - tornadoboy55 10y ago
        X is inherently insecure. That's enough of a reason to have everything in Wayland ASAP.
        bitwize 10y ago
        There's nothing inherently insecure about the X protocol. Sandboxing X would involve simply not providing information about drawables not created by the client. That means filtering out input events destined for those drawables and returning blank pixmaps when their contents are asked for. That the X server doesn't do this, and provide knobs to control who is trusted and who isn't, is a shame. But again, we don't have to burn the entire graphics stack because security.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 10y ago
Worse, by embracing web applications the GNU/Linux community made those GNU/Linux UIs even less relevant. Comparing with other desktop OSes, not only those UIs keep getting rewritten, there is a lack of common infrastructure for modern UI desktops, akin to Framework modules in other desktop systems. So anyone that cares about UI/UX has a more enjoyable experience in other systems.
bitwize 10y ago
Daniel Stone video! mic drop
tannhaeuser 10y ago
Sadly, I have to agree, though hearing this must be very discouraging to developers. I'm running Ubuntu 15.04 and it's broken in so many basic ways; like, it crashes when you open the calender widget on the wrong day of the month, apps only refreshing the UI when you move the window around, isn't even able to format an USB stick with FAT out of the box, etc. I can't back it up with numbers, but my feeling is that desktop Linux has peaked around 2010 (Ubuntu 14 LTS), and is regressing since. In times of shrinking desktop usage, rather than inventing new stuff all the time, it'd be nice if distros could focus on providing a robust runtime environment for the OSS desktop software we have. Maybe I should use Slackware 14.2 (systemd-free; its setup on modern hardware with nvme, uefi etc. seems painful, though). But I'm not complaining; all the work is done mostly by enthusiasts, and commercial OSs don't work well either.
- chtfn 10y ago
  You are using a version that has reached its end of life months ago. If you are looking for stability, you should stick to LTS versions. 16.04 should be reliable enough by now, and you can stick to it for years. The 2010 version you speak of should be 10.04. Or do you mean 14.04, which was released in 2014?
  - tannhaeuser 10y ago
    No you're right, I meant 10.04 LTS. 16.04 isn't that different from 15.10, though, and I believe I can dist-upgrade to 16.04 LTS.

by tga 10y ago

erelde 10y ago

That link is about "window managers" which are different from "desktop environments". I agree though that Unity (in particular but not limited to) tries very hard to reinvent the wheel every 2 years.

ronnybrendel2 10y ago
I am a KDE user for 10 years now and I can't emphasize enough how annoyed I am about this. Every major release breaks something. And it takes months and years for seemingly basic things to come back, if they come back at all. For example Shift+Del for files on the desktop https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344969 https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344969 . Right now I am especially pissed about the state of multi-monitor support for my Thinkpad + docking station. It is completely broken since KDE 5. I can't undock, dock, suspend + combinations without everything crashing. (That means I can't carry my laptop around the office.) KDE also has troubles arranging the desktops, keeping task bars on the correct monitor, or starting the desktop correctly at all. The middle mouse button of the external keyboard doesn't work after suspend. If I have two external monitors the frame rate drops significantly and I get screen tearing while moving windows around (Not sure whose fault that is. Maybe graphics drivers.) Etc. :( I know, open source, payment, free time. You can't really blame anyone for this. The incentives and accountability, like for commercial products, aren't there. With Microsoft's wish to be more like Google and the new telemetry features, I am either looking for a Mac next time or at least move to Gnome or Unity. What also sucks is that these issues lead to me only using a small subset of programs like console, browser and gimp (no fancy editor, no mail client) to avoid anything important I use breaking.
- cyberpunk 10y ago
  Do you really need kde at all then? I started using a much more minimal setup (dwm) because of a similar experience and everything is rock solid, it's so refreshing! I was on mac for years as it stayed out of my way for most of the time but that stopped being true in the last few years -- maybe get a loaner and try it for a bit before you commit to it; I can imagine swapping out of frustration just to find your new setup is equally annoying wouldn't be fun!
Lintaris 10y ago
There are no significant differences between versions of Unity. The functionality remains the same.

blfr 10y ago

Unity 8 looks a lot like Unity 7 which I use daily. While a lot is changing underneath there's definitely a feeling of continuation in the user experience. The 3d desktop effects, however, don't seem to be the future. I loved the Compiz cube when if first came out and it impressed onlookers at the time but these things don't add to your enjoyment of using the system after a (fairly short) and they never make using it easier.

curt15 10y ago
However I do notice that in Unity 8, windows stick perfectly to the cursor when they are being moved.
- reddotX 10y ago
  yep and i'm running this on an old celeron and i'm using mirscreencast and then pipe to ffmpeg to record the video. so what you see is unity8 running on old hardware and with cpu load at 100% :D
tvmalsv 10y ago
I have to admit I still like and use the Compiz cube, but what I really like is the Wobbly Windows effect. It may seem cheesy to many, but it's oddly satisfying to me. And it's really smooth even in VirtualBox.
- loudmax 10y ago
  I love my wobbly windows. It's an effect that you can only do on an open source desktop. I don't doubt that Microsoft or Apple could implement wobbly windows if they really wanted to, but it's a silly effect and servers no real purpose, so they don't. It's a bit of bling that makes my desktop look futuristic when I drag terminal windows around.
Lintaris 10y ago
Unity 7 works on X11 and Unity 8 is the new version to work on the new desktop server. I think it is on purpose to be as similar as possible.

szastupov 10y ago

At least others agreed to eventually settle on Wayland, while Canonical is really reinventing the wheel with Mir.

bitwize 10y ago
I get the feeling that as soon as Wayland gets significant uptake and starts being less than broken for most users, it will instantly be replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable. The OSS community seems to view constant change -- and churn -- as an inherent good.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Right, because two protocols in 32 years is "constant change".
  - kefka 10y ago
    Nahh, that's not why. They got rid of the idea of the X protocol and network transparency. I like being able to log in to remove Linux machines, and run programs that show up locally on my desktop. And since it's not some framebuffer, I know the X commands are being send and then rendering on my side. That's loads better than some dumb pixel maps. And X is extensible. Plugins aren't easy to write, but you can do it. We have Screen for X (Xpra), mpX (multiple pointer/keyboard), OpenGL, and loads more. Yeah, some could be considered cruft, or multiple ways to do the same thing, but that's the Unix Way.
    - tornadoboy55 10y ago
      X is inherently insecure. That's enough of a reason to have everything in Wayland ASAP.
      - bitwize 10y ago
        There's nothing inherently insecure about the X protocol. Sandboxing X would involve simply not providing information about drawables not created by the client. That means filtering out input events destined for those drawables and returning blank pixmaps when their contents are asked for. That the X server doesn't do this, and provide knobs to control who is trusted and who isn't, is a shame. But again, we don't have to burn the entire graphics stack because security.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pjmlp 10y ago

Worse, by embracing web applications the GNU/Linux community made those GNU/Linux UIs even less relevant. Comparing with other desktop OSes, not only those UIs keep getting rewritten, there is a lack of common infrastructure for modern UI desktops, akin to Framework modules in other desktop systems. So anyone that cares about UI/UX has a more enjoyable experience in other systems.

bitwize 10y ago

Daniel Stone video! mic drop

tannhaeuser 10y ago

Sadly, I have to agree, though hearing this must be very discouraging to developers. I'm running Ubuntu 15.04 and it's broken in so many basic ways; like, it crashes when you open the calender widget on the wrong day of the month, apps only refreshing the UI when you move the window around, isn't even able to format an USB stick with FAT out of the box, etc. I can't back it up with numbers, but my feeling is that desktop Linux has peaked around 2010 (Ubuntu 14 LTS), and is regressing since. In times of shrinking desktop usage, rather than inventing new stuff all the time, it'd be nice if distros could focus on providing a robust runtime environment for the OSS desktop software we have. Maybe I should use Slackware 14.2 (systemd-free; its setup on modern hardware with nvme, uefi etc. seems painful, though). But I'm not complaining; all the work is done mostly by enthusiasts, and commercial OSs don't work well either.

chtfn 10y ago
You are using a version that has reached its end of life months ago. If you are looking for stability, you should stick to LTS versions. 16.04 should be reliable enough by now, and you can stick to it for years. The 2010 version you speak of should be 10.04. Or do you mean 14.04, which was released in 2014?
- tannhaeuser 10y ago
  No you're right, I meant 10.04 LTS. 16.04 isn't that different from 15.10, though, and I believe I can dist-upgrade to 16.04 LTS.