4 ms·

With the privacy concerns about Windows 10 and Apple's diminishing focus on macOS this was the perfect time for Ubuntu with its desktop focus to thrive. The on

by throw2016 9y ago

With the privacy concerns about Windows 10 and Apple's diminishing focus on macOS this was the perfect time for Ubuntu with its desktop focus to thrive. The only missing link was a hardware focus. Every other Linux thread on HN confirms the underlying demand for a fuss free Linux hardware experience. Inspite of the 'organized hatchet job' on Unity by folks never under any compulsion to use it to explain the 'hatred' it was the best placed to do this. It was by far the most polished and modern looking Linux desktop. It was Ubuntu's USP and its tragic they imploded at a time they could capitalize the most. I fail to understand all these 'community' spokespeople who have suddenly cropped up on discussion boards who seek to act as 'gatekeepers'. This is not how open source works, people have always done their own thing. No one is in a position to decide what is NIH, fragmentation, duplication of effort or 'good' for the community. Individuals cannot speak for a community. What is wrong with having Mir or having an alternative to Android on phones, all bankrolled by Shuttleworth? These would be welcome and how some have managed to convert these Ubuntu investments into a huge negative is simply inexplicable. No disinterested user or observer can be so bitter about other projects.

bitexploder 9y ago
Ubuntu still needs to make money and serve some kind of audience. They have a philosophy and goals as an organization. Writing software that no one will ever use does not serve their organization. If a feature is just going to go to a black hole it is a waste of their time. There is no real problem for the community, but there is a problem for Ubuntu. Also, I think you could argue that there are, effectively, gatekeepers for the most important projects (Linus/Linux, etc.). Totally agree about the privacy concerns of Windows 10. I would even say with Sierra I have definite privacy concerns for macOS. The direction is more and more in the walled garden direction for macOS and I do not like it one bit. I ditched Apple/Win for a Linux system even though it meant several weekends of tweaking to get a Linux laptop correct. An amusing anecdote regarding that, I think a lot of the time cost is just knowing which things work well on Linux. Things are not always "seamless" on Windows or macOS and once you know how to configure a Linux software stack into a productive desktop environment it doesn't cost you that much more than any other OS. Thing is, most folks make an effort to migrate over and conflate two separate things of learning the hardware and the actually dysfunctional Linux desktop things with finding software that is similar to what they are using on macOS.
cowardlydragon 9y ago
Sigh. Windows 8 was the opportunity. That massive incompetent stinkbomb, while simultaneously OSX was being ignored. Google could have finished off Microsoft with a death knell investment of a relative pittance: - get LibreOffice to 100% parity and compatibility with office - pick and polish a desktop environment to a perfect OSX, Windows-7, and Ubuntu interface - get CrossOffice/WINE to near-100% compatibility - near-perfect android app use. Instead... ChromeOS? Google could have added a multibillion dollar industry for the investment of $100 mil.
- Asooka 9y ago
  Maybe they didn't want to be RedHat? As in, all those projects are open-source and if Google invested in them, they'd be investing in something they can't fully control. Google's goal is to make money, not fight for user freedom, after all.
- dom0 9y ago
  > - get LibreOffice to 100% parity and compatibility with office > - get CrossOffice/WINE to near-100% compatibility > - near-perfect android app use. > relative pittance: > investment of $100 mil. Wait, what?
Karunamon 9y ago
It was by far the most polished and modern looking Linux desktop. That is an opinion not shared by everyone. I found it to have questionable design direction. Unity was best on the platform where it was initially released, being screen-size constrained netbooks. It just stops making sense on the desktops everyone has. Hiding menu/scroll bars and the like... No one is in a position to decide what is NIH, fragmentation, duplication of effort or 'good' for the community. Individuals cannot speak for a community. It's called sharing one's opinion, and it happens everywhere. Mir had nothing to offer to the larger ecosystem, and neither did Unity. Uniqueness or being a "third option" isn't a virtue all on its own, and it looks like that lesson finally hit home.
- throw2016 9y ago
  True, it goes the other way too. Simply don't use what you don't like. I don't like KDE but many do. Nothing can justify launching a tirade based on personal preferences, so what explains the kind of negativity directed at Unity? One is free to share one's individual opinion, but one can't speak for the 'community'. For instance just because 'you' personally see no value in Mir, Unity or Ubuntu phone doesn't make it true. Maybe others do. That's just your opinion. Don't pretend to speak for a community. As long as you are not compelled to use it you can choose something else. Since there is no overarching Linux community no individual or project can declare 'NIH', 'fragmentation', 'duplication of effort' or the particularly measly-mouthed 'good' of the community? Which community? Debian, Redhat, Suse, Mint, Cinammon, Slackware, Gnome, KDE, Elementary, Budgie? Which community are they speaking for? These terms are being used to manipulate and push self serving agendas by bad actors.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    >Nothing can justify launching a tirade based on personal preferences I'm sorry, but why do "tirades" require "justification"? I can talk all day long about how Unity's UI is shitty. I have no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise to phrase my annoyance in any specific way.
hedora 9y ago
I hated it because it was incredibly user hostile, at least for users like me. It broke the alt key. I need three things to work: emacs, web and shell. Two of those three need the alt key. Also, it was always flaky under virtualization (due to needing 3d acceleration). Finally, the last time I tried to use it (16.04, I think), it was full of spyware by default. By the time I removed all the lenses, etc, apt was so confused that the machine couldn't boot. I have been running debian / ubuntu for nearly two decades, and this is the only time this has happened to me. Fixing these problems would be trivial compared to the effort of implementing unity from scratch. I suspect the core problems with unity were symptoms of structural issues at canonical. Hopefully they'll be fixed now that Shuttleworth is back in charge.

bitexploder 9y ago

Ubuntu still needs to make money and serve some kind of audience. They have a philosophy and goals as an organization. Writing software that no one will ever use does not serve their organization. If a feature is just going to go to a black hole it is a waste of their time. There is no real problem for the community, but there is a problem for Ubuntu. Also, I think you could argue that there are, effectively, gatekeepers for the most important projects (Linus/Linux, etc.). Totally agree about the privacy concerns of Windows 10. I would even say with Sierra I have definite privacy concerns for macOS. The direction is more and more in the walled garden direction for macOS and I do not like it one bit. I ditched Apple/Win for a Linux system even though it meant several weekends of tweaking to get a Linux laptop correct. An amusing anecdote regarding that, I think a lot of the time cost is just knowing which things work well on Linux. Things are not always "seamless" on Windows or macOS and once you know how to configure a Linux software stack into a productive desktop environment it doesn't cost you that much more than any other OS. Thing is, most folks make an effort to migrate over and conflate two separate things of learning the hardware and the actually dysfunctional Linux desktop things with finding software that is similar to what they are using on macOS.

cowardlydragon 9y ago

Sigh. Windows 8 was the opportunity. That massive incompetent stinkbomb, while simultaneously OSX was being ignored. Google could have finished off Microsoft with a death knell investment of a relative pittance: - get LibreOffice to 100% parity and compatibility with office - pick and polish a desktop environment to a perfect OSX, Windows-7, and Ubuntu interface - get CrossOffice/WINE to near-100% compatibility - near-perfect android app use. Instead... ChromeOS? Google could have added a multibillion dollar industry for the investment of $100 mil.

Asooka 9y ago
Maybe they didn't want to be RedHat? As in, all those projects are open-source and if Google invested in them, they'd be investing in something they can't fully control. Google's goal is to make money, not fight for user freedom, after all.
dom0 9y ago
> - get LibreOffice to 100% parity and compatibility with office > - get CrossOffice/WINE to near-100% compatibility > - near-perfect android app use. > relative pittance: > investment of $100 mil. Wait, what?

Karunamon 9y ago

It was by far the most polished and modern looking Linux desktop. That is an opinion not shared by everyone. I found it to have questionable design direction. Unity was best on the platform where it was initially released, being screen-size constrained netbooks. It just stops making sense on the desktops everyone has. Hiding menu/scroll bars and the like... No one is in a position to decide what is NIH, fragmentation, duplication of effort or 'good' for the community. Individuals cannot speak for a community. It's called sharing one's opinion, and it happens everywhere. Mir had nothing to offer to the larger ecosystem, and neither did Unity. Uniqueness or being a "third option" isn't a virtue all on its own, and it looks like that lesson finally hit home.

throw2016 9y ago
True, it goes the other way too. Simply don't use what you don't like. I don't like KDE but many do. Nothing can justify launching a tirade based on personal preferences, so what explains the kind of negativity directed at Unity? One is free to share one's individual opinion, but one can't speak for the 'community'. For instance just because 'you' personally see no value in Mir, Unity or Ubuntu phone doesn't make it true. Maybe others do. That's just your opinion. Don't pretend to speak for a community. As long as you are not compelled to use it you can choose something else. Since there is no overarching Linux community no individual or project can declare 'NIH', 'fragmentation', 'duplication of effort' or the particularly measly-mouthed 'good' of the community? Which community? Debian, Redhat, Suse, Mint, Cinammon, Slackware, Gnome, KDE, Elementary, Budgie? Which community are they speaking for? These terms are being used to manipulate and push self serving agendas by bad actors.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  >Nothing can justify launching a tirade based on personal preferences I'm sorry, but why do "tirades" require "justification"? I can talk all day long about how Unity's UI is shitty. I have no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise to phrase my annoyance in any specific way.

hedora 9y ago

I hated it because it was incredibly user hostile, at least for users like me. It broke the alt key. I need three things to work: emacs, web and shell. Two of those three need the alt key. Also, it was always flaky under virtualization (due to needing 3d acceleration). Finally, the last time I tried to use it (16.04, I think), it was full of spyware by default. By the time I removed all the lenses, etc, apt was so confused that the machine couldn't boot. I have been running debian / ubuntu for nearly two decades, and this is the only time this has happened to me. Fixing these problems would be trivial compared to the effort of implementing unity from scratch. I suspect the core problems with unity were symptoms of structural issues at canonical. Hopefully they'll be fixed now that Shuttleworth is back in charge.