18 ms·

Seven Minutes in Ubuntu: A Mac user's first impressions

170 points by parkov 15y ago

chimeracoder 15y ago
First: This is really a review of Unity, not Ubuntu. The main ways that Ubuntu/Linux differ from OS X have nothing to do with the UI, but rather the underlying system. That said, I'm glad to see that somebody likes Unity. Ubuntu's switch to Unity is one of the reasons that I left Ubuntu for another distro. It seems like Canonical is targeting its product more towards people like the author of this post, in which case it seems that their strategy may be working.
- pspeter3 15y ago
  Which distro did you leave for?
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    Arch. I was already running Arch on my netbook, and it worked beautifully, so when I got a new computer the first thing I did was install Arch on it. Haven't looked back.
    - pspeter3 15y ago
      Fair enough, I switched to elementary which has been ubuntu without unity for me. How hard was it to switch to Arch from Ubuntu?
      - sandGorgon 15y ago
        @pspeter3 - how has been your experience with Elementary - especially your transition from Ubuntu? Things like package management (any apt-get changes), multimonitor support, wifi/sound drivers, etc. ? They are doing really cool (and actually usable stuff) with features like Switchboard+Plugs, Synapse, Pantheon, etc. so am really interested in switching.
        pspeter3 15y ago
        Because elementary is just ubuntu under the hood. The interface is different and so are the default apps but all the drivers and package management works identically. It's been a great transition. The power of ubuntu with the design of Mac essentially.
      - chimeracoder 15y ago
        The Arch Wiki (and Beginner's Guide) make it really easy to set up your system, especially when combined with the list of commonly used/installed applications. It takes a bit more time to set up, since you're building your system from the ground up with exactly the applications you want. Once you do, though, you know your system inside and out, and you can customize it exactly the way you want it. If you have a 'do-it-yourself' attitude, you'll love Arch. If not, you may be annoyed by having to set up things that Ubuntu sets up during the installation (major things like the DE/WM, and minor things like setting up international fonts). Personally, I appreciate knowing exactly what and where everything is on my system and not having the added bloat, hence the switch.
        codelurker 15y ago
        Agreed! Arch = linux legos. :)
        chimeracoder 15y ago
        I like that analogy - I think I'm going to hold onto it!
- simpsond 15y ago
  The opinions of Unity are definitely mixed. I personally think Unity is great, and I have been using desktop linux for a decade. So, I am also glad to see someone find Unity useful.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    Unity is opinionated. That will always lead to mixed reactions, depending on whether your opinions match their opinions.
- ineedtosleep 15y ago
  Coming from an on and off user of ubuntu since Breezy Badger, I'm fine with Unity (especially after getting used to Windows 7 keyboard shortcuts). There are parts of Unity that I completely dislike (e.g. overlay scrollbar being enabled by default), but they're just minor annoyances. The thing that I'm worried about though, similar to what you're pointing out, is that it feels like they're not making Ubuntu for the previous users of Ubuntu anymore. I still run 11.10 with Unity, but it's getting to a point where I'm noticing an increase of time where I am turning off a bunch of annoying things that Ubuntu have added over time. I have XFCE on all my other machines that need a desktop environment and it looks like this sole Ubuntu machine will head that way soon.
  - danssig 15y ago
    Well, if they want to break more into the mainstream they will have to move closer to what users are used to. Personally I think it is a bold move to copy OSX instead of windows (if that's what's going on). The kind of people who like the way it works now should also be able to change it back if they want. If not, we're talking about less than 1% of desktop users. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them, personally.
- keithpeter 15y ago
  To apply your first point to your second paragraph: Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound. I use Xubuntu on my netbook as my students can work out how to get a wordprocessor going or load a youtube video in class. On the desktop pc I use dwm (large widescreen monitor) and I'm loving the efficiency. In fact, I install dmenu on all the computers and bind it to Super-Space.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    > Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound. Agreed - it wouldn't have been a reason by itself, but it was an annoyance. More broadly, Ubuntu seems to be moving towards focusing on providing a polished interface, out-of-the-box support, and all of the other things that would be necessary for luring users away from OS X. That's fine, but they're frankly very low on my list of requirements for an OS, so I used the opportunity to switch to a distro that better fit my needs. As I said, if that's their intended userbase, I'm glad their goal is working. It just so happens that I'm not one of those users.
    - lurker19 15y ago
      Ubuntu will never be as coherent and polished as Mac, and being #2 in this area is pointless. Ubuntu should be supporting its users before they all leave, not trying to woo people who prefer something else.
- kawohi 15y ago
  If a new user came to Ubuntu, like this person has, Unity will effect the reviews of Ubuntu. So IMO they will not care if its Unity. It's still on Ubuntu. So if this user was to say Ubuntu just sucked ass, then they're talking about the whole OS in one. Not just Unity.
- fl3tch 15y ago
  Those of us who have been using Gnome 2 for years have already streamlined and optimized our work flow in that environment. Whenever the UI changes, it breaks existing patterns of behavior that we usually don't even think about anymore. That's why people don't like change: it makes them less productive, at least temporarily as they streamline a new work flow. People didn't like the MS Office ribbon interface, the KDE 4 interface, etc., either. Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side, I found myself automatically and subconsciously moving the pointer to the right and clicking on an empty space, which was wasted effort and time, until I relearned that behavior. People who haven't used Linux / Gnome before don't have those expectations and optimizations, so it's not surprising that they will have a more positive view of Unity. Also, Canonical is trying to make Unity emulate OS X to some extent, so the interface meets some expectations of Mac users. They will probably respond more positively.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    > Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side... One of the first things I did when I upgraded to 10.04 was to move the window controls back to the right side. http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#toc_4 http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#...
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I think the same thing happened to me. I had been using a tiling WM for a while before Natty came out, but I decided to give Unity a try and I generally found I could make it work pretty acceptably with just a bit of messing around, more nicely than GNOME 2 actually. I still switched back, but not for several weeks.
bdhe 15y ago
The point about angle of escape was really interesting. However, my google fu failed me. The only relevant link mentioning angle of escape leads back to this post. Is there someone who can give me more information about this? (Or a more technical term, if the author uses the term colloquially). Once again, UI design never fails to fascinate me. The first concrete reason I ever came across that explained the superiority of the Mac user interface was the application of Fitt's law to the menu items. This looks like another solid point in favor of the Mac.
- parkov 15y ago
  I'm not familiar with any term to describe this, but "angle of escape" seemed fitting.
- epistasis 15y ago
  I don't think a proper term has ever been used before now. There was a lot of thought put into the angle of escape when accessing sub-menus in the pull down menus. See the answer to "Question 6" in the link below. If anybody know the proper term, Tog would, and he doesn't appear to know of one. http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
  - smoyer 15y ago
    There's no reference to this in "Tog on Interface" either, but he repeatedly references Fitt's law. I think that applies to the "escape angle" as well.
    - sovok 15y ago
      I think it follows from Fitts' Law or rather is its reverse: If the cursor is outside an area, the bigger and closer this area is the easier it is to purposefully hit. ⇔ If the cursor is inside an area, the bigger this area is and the farther away its borders are, the harder it is to accidentally leave.
  - stewbrew 15y ago
miles_matthias 15y ago
Nice post. I'm surprised you didn't talk about it's new 7-like dock. What programs did you use to do that highlighting?
- parkov 15y ago
  Thanks. As a newcomer to Ubuntu, I didn't realize how new the dock was. It seems straightforward and useful to me. But I'm sure there's controversy with it. Highlighting was done with Omnigraffle. It took some time find a good way to depict the angle of escape. I ended up rotating a quarter circle and cropping the edges off. Hacky but does the trick.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  What's a "7-like dock"?
  - lazugod 15y ago
    Similar to Windows 7, I assume.
jvc26 15y ago
I found it interesting 'I got my hands on a PC to use as a web server (thanks Andrea!). Before I could get started on it though, I needed an operating system to install' ... but the version installed was Ubuntu Desktop, rather than Server ...?
- sp332 15y ago
  The server version is not very "user-friendly" - it doesn't even have X installed. They both have access to the same set of packages to install afterwards. So it's a lot easier to start with the Desktop version and then add some of the "server" packages, than it would be to start with the server version and install X, Unity, etc. afterward.
  - keithpeter 15y ago
    Many people use servers without X and with a configuration that emphasises server tasks and security. They tend to access the server using ssh or other remote protocols. The choice of a graphical distribution did strike me as a little odd, as did the choice of a distribution with a support life measured in months. But, linux is about choice!
    - SkyMarshal 15y ago
      Heh, author is brand new to Linux, may not even be aware there is a such thing as GUI-less server OSes. Give him a year and he'll be running a dev box with minimal Arch + Xmonad base and multiple Ubuntu Servers in KVM.
      - starwed 15y ago
        You're wrong about that. >... these impressions come from someone who’s used mostly Windows at work and Mac at home. Sure, there’s a sprinkling of Solaris, IRIX, and Linux mixed in there, but I’ve never used Ubuntu, haven’t used any distribution of Linux in quite some time ... The author seems to be using it to prototype a research project as quickly as possible.
notatoad 15y ago
the good news: - in oneiric, the global menu bar is contiguously either clickable or not-clickable: when you hover over it, only clickable items are displayed. - immediately after install, the new software centre displays a button to launch that application, you don't have to browse the list anymore. also, the list of installed applications is now sorted into relevant categories rather than filled up with system packages. - the 'updates are available' message in oneiric's system menu makes it much more clear how to get updates, but i don't think it's really possible to teach ubuntu's package-management update paradigm through UI. it's not something new windows or mac converts will ever get immediately.
- technomancy 15y ago
  Indeed, it's a shame that he chose to review 11.04 nearly a week before 11.10 will be released.
  - andrewl-hn 15y ago
    He needed a version of Linux to get the job done so he chose a distro and downloaded the latest stable version. I can't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't expect a casual user (even a programmer) to be aware of Ubuntu release schedule.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
capkutay 15y ago
I'm also a long time mac user, running the new Ubuntu on my desktop. Couldn't be happier with it, the UI is clean and user friendly. Feels like I'm using a slightly modified version of OS X. Apt-get can be useful at times...always sure to do my large-scale projects on Ubuntu.
DanBC 15y ago
About the un-clickable program name in the menu bar. I agree that it'd be nice, like OS X, to have that as a menu. OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. Linux is a lot more free. So, a "preferences" menu item could go in 'file' or 'edit' or 'view' or 'tools'; or maybe only some of the preferences are there and the rest are in a config file. It took me some getting used to.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. No, not in the least. It's technically possible (indeed, trivial using Interface Builder) to remove all these menus (the application menu is probably the only one whose removal may lead to your application crashing), and move or remove just about all of their content. Neither OSX nor Apple forces anything (at least outside the AppStore, I do not know if there are imposed standards there). On the other hand: 1. Apple provides extensive application templates in IB, they're generally used unless there's a good reason not to 2. Apple publishes extensive Human Interface Guidelines, the latest revision of the "OSX Human Interface Guidelines" document (2011-07-26) is 276 pages (a low actually, in 2009 it was more than 350 pages), as a PDF it weighs 26MB. And much like the IB templates, it is followed unless there's a reason not to 3. users care about consistency, when guidelines are broken for no good reason users will generally make their displeasure known. And because OSX has a thriving "indie" development scene (paid, low-cost software by very small teams) this generates an environment where interface care and consistency is taken pretty seriously.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    Yes, I agree. My post was worded very poorly. Thank you for the corrections! I didn't realise that Apple didn't force the HIG. I do enjoy the care and thoughtful interface decisions.
    - rahoulb 15y ago
      It's not that Apple don't force the HIG. But if you break them you need to have a good reason as your users expect you to follow the HIG.
ch0wn 15y ago
I got the Firefox 7.0 update through the regular update channels a few days after it was on the Mozilla FTP servers. So actually, the update was even before the official release. I have no idea why there was no update available for OP.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  No kidding. It made me sad to see my favorite Linux/package management feature (misused?) slighted especially when it did in fact work quite smoothly.
vasco 15y ago
"My greatest concern was that I’d have to do a lot of installing and configuring before I could get anything meaningful done. All I wanted was a standard setup, and to not derail focus from my work." And yet he had the time to document the whole experience at the same time?
cpeterso 15y ago
Why does the Unity menu bar's File menu truncate the application name to "Firefox V"? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with long names. I'm assuming "Firefox V" was something like "Firefox Version 4", which isn't an unusually long name (especially for such a popular application and one that is a default application for Ubuntu). They shouldn't even include the version number in the application name. Joe User doesn't care.
- windsurfer 15y ago
  Why does the Unity menu bar's File menu truncate the application name to "Firefox V"? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with long names. The author's screenshot hides the fact that the menu bar is hidden when the mouse is not over the top bar. When your mouse is elsewhere, the entire window's name (In my case "Hacker news | Add Comment - Mozilla Firefox") takes up the top bar.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  It says "Firefox Web Browser". They've tweaked this behavior several times. Without hover it displays the title of the window (unless you have many, non-fullscreen instances, it which case it is just the application title). When you hover, it truncate/fades the application title to show you the menu. They opted for truncation because they want the leftmost menu to appear in a consistent location.
EGreg 15y ago
I just wanted to correct something about Fitts' Law. The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant. In fact, if you throw the mouse in the upper right direction, it will hit the top right corner no matter which edge it hits first. Thus you actually can hit the corner spots without even aiming in a particular square. Try this on a mac: throw your pointer into the top left or top right corners, and press the button. You WILL open the menu, even though it may not have been obvious that you would -- the highlighted region around the icon does not extend to the edge. So in fact, it's ok to make them smaller.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant. That's not what he means. The "angle of escape" referred to is the angle at which you can move your mouse out of the target icon to a menu item after the menu is open. If you go too far horizontally first, the menu will close in favor of a different menu.
  - EGreg 15y ago
    aha, got it.
macspoofing 15y ago
I dunno. Windows 7 and Mac OSX kinda make Gnome look dated.
dhughes 15y ago
I recently (about two weeks ago) bought my first Apple ever, a Macbook Pro. It took forever to find out function+backspace=real backspace not delete Everything seems to be arranged around single clicks any right-clicking seems alien on a Mac. It's very glossy and cartoons but you can tell the hardware and OS were made hand-in-hand or at least work very well with each other. It's pretty but annoying at times it's has a hint of like Linux, I opened Terminal to feel at home, but it's like Linux out at its grandmothers on it's best behaviour. I wouldn't say either is better than the other but different for sure although like I said very similar way more so than Windows and Linux or Mac and Windows. Now if only I could stop that creepy "killer clowns on acid in a dark alley" start-up sound.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Welcome to the hivemind. :-) I have grown very accustomed to the control-click motion for 'right' clicking. I don't think right-clicking is very alien, at least in the programs I use. Best of happiness in your new Mac!
  - tomcreighton 15y ago
    Are you using a one-button mouse, or no mouse whatsoever? OS X is pretty right-click friendly out of the box.
    - pnathan 15y ago
      No mouse. Laptop. Occasionally I plug in a two-button mouse, but that's limited to fairly specific occasions when I'm actually mousing around. Most of the time I am either scrolling or keyboarding.
      - ericd 15y ago
        Two fingers on the mousepad+click make right clicking pretty easy. Alternately, you can make clicking on the bottom right of the trackpad into a right click. The trackpad prefpane gives you a pretty good array of options to customize its behavior.
vacri 15y ago
"Bad: Firefox 4 instead of the up-to-date Firefox 7!" Official releases: - Ubuntu 11.04: 28 April 2011 - Firefox 5: 21 June 2011 - Firefox 7: 27 September 2011 (5 days ago) Yes, that's a valid criticism: I used a 6-month-old official installer and didn't get last month's software without doing any form of update whatsoever! Clearly a failing of ubuntu!
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  I think the author has a point: it would be nice if Firefox advised the user that a newer version is available (or, alternately, simply upgraded silently a la Chrome). I've been a Ubuntu user for a few years now, and it generally ranges from cumbersome to downright difficult to upgrade to the newest Firefox version. There's a reason hacks like Ubuntuzilla exist.
  - kinetik 15y ago
    Firefox does this by default, but its built-in update mechanism is disabled in Ubuntu-shipped versions in favour of Ubuntu's package management.
  - vacri 15y ago
    If you give it longer than 7 minutes, Ubuntu will prompt you to update - not just firefox, but a whole range of things. Firefox is just another part of the system, and doesn't really have any reason to update RIGHT NOW! as opposed to once a day when the usual updates come through. In any case, if you're the kind of person that knows what actual features you will gain from FF7 over FF4 (other than just "sweet, a higher numbah"), you're a power user and should know better than to make the complaint he did - you should be able to do the extremely mild googling required on your new, unfamiliar OS to make it happen. On another tangent, this kind of comment in the article is one of the big problems with FF deciding to do away with minor numbers and make every release a major number. "But FF 4.0 is so old, we're up to 7.0 now!! Bad!!" when it was the current release a mere 103 days ago.

170 points by parkov 15y ago

First: This is really a review of Unity, not Ubuntu. The main ways that Ubuntu/Linux differ from OS X have nothing to do with the UI, but rather the underlying system. That said, I'm glad to see that somebody likes Unity. Ubuntu's switch to Unity is one of the reasons that I left Ubuntu for another distro. It seems like Canonical is targeting its product more towards people like the author of this post, in which case it seems that their strategy may be working.

pspeter3 15y ago
Which distro did you leave for?
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  Arch. I was already running Arch on my netbook, and it worked beautifully, so when I got a new computer the first thing I did was install Arch on it. Haven't looked back.
  - pspeter3 15y ago
    Fair enough, I switched to elementary which has been ubuntu without unity for me. How hard was it to switch to Arch from Ubuntu?
    - sandGorgon 15y ago
      @pspeter3 - how has been your experience with Elementary - especially your transition from Ubuntu? Things like package management (any apt-get changes), multimonitor support, wifi/sound drivers, etc. ? They are doing really cool (and actually usable stuff) with features like Switchboard+Plugs, Synapse, Pantheon, etc. so am really interested in switching.
      - pspeter3 15y ago
        Because elementary is just ubuntu under the hood. The interface is different and so are the default apps but all the drivers and package management works identically. It's been a great transition. The power of ubuntu with the design of Mac essentially.
    - chimeracoder 15y ago
      The Arch Wiki (and Beginner's Guide) make it really easy to set up your system, especially when combined with the list of commonly used/installed applications. It takes a bit more time to set up, since you're building your system from the ground up with exactly the applications you want. Once you do, though, you know your system inside and out, and you can customize it exactly the way you want it. If you have a 'do-it-yourself' attitude, you'll love Arch. If not, you may be annoyed by having to set up things that Ubuntu sets up during the installation (major things like the DE/WM, and minor things like setting up international fonts). Personally, I appreciate knowing exactly what and where everything is on my system and not having the added bloat, hence the switch.
      - codelurker 15y ago
        Agreed! Arch = linux legos. :)
        chimeracoder 15y ago
        I like that analogy - I think I'm going to hold onto it!
simpsond 15y ago
The opinions of Unity are definitely mixed. I personally think Unity is great, and I have been using desktop linux for a decade. So, I am also glad to see someone find Unity useful.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  Unity is opinionated. That will always lead to mixed reactions, depending on whether your opinions match their opinions.
ineedtosleep 15y ago
Coming from an on and off user of ubuntu since Breezy Badger, I'm fine with Unity (especially after getting used to Windows 7 keyboard shortcuts). There are parts of Unity that I completely dislike (e.g. overlay scrollbar being enabled by default), but they're just minor annoyances. The thing that I'm worried about though, similar to what you're pointing out, is that it feels like they're not making Ubuntu for the previous users of Ubuntu anymore. I still run 11.10 with Unity, but it's getting to a point where I'm noticing an increase of time where I am turning off a bunch of annoying things that Ubuntu have added over time. I have XFCE on all my other machines that need a desktop environment and it looks like this sole Ubuntu machine will head that way soon.
- danssig 15y ago
  Well, if they want to break more into the mainstream they will have to move closer to what users are used to. Personally I think it is a bold move to copy OSX instead of windows (if that's what's going on). The kind of people who like the way it works now should also be able to change it back if they want. If not, we're talking about less than 1% of desktop users. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them, personally.
keithpeter 15y ago
To apply your first point to your second paragraph: Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound. I use Xubuntu on my netbook as my students can work out how to get a wordprocessor going or load a youtube video in class. On the desktop pc I use dwm (large widescreen monitor) and I'm loving the efficiency. In fact, I install dmenu on all the computers and bind it to Super-Space.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  > Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound. Agreed - it wouldn't have been a reason by itself, but it was an annoyance. More broadly, Ubuntu seems to be moving towards focusing on providing a polished interface, out-of-the-box support, and all of the other things that would be necessary for luring users away from OS X. That's fine, but they're frankly very low on my list of requirements for an OS, so I used the opportunity to switch to a distro that better fit my needs. As I said, if that's their intended userbase, I'm glad their goal is working. It just so happens that I'm not one of those users.
  - lurker19 15y ago
    Ubuntu will never be as coherent and polished as Mac, and being #2 in this area is pointless. Ubuntu should be supporting its users before they all leave, not trying to woo people who prefer something else.
kawohi 15y ago
If a new user came to Ubuntu, like this person has, Unity will effect the reviews of Ubuntu. So IMO they will not care if its Unity. It's still on Ubuntu. So if this user was to say Ubuntu just sucked ass, then they're talking about the whole OS in one. Not just Unity.
fl3tch 15y ago
Those of us who have been using Gnome 2 for years have already streamlined and optimized our work flow in that environment. Whenever the UI changes, it breaks existing patterns of behavior that we usually don't even think about anymore. That's why people don't like change: it makes them less productive, at least temporarily as they streamline a new work flow. People didn't like the MS Office ribbon interface, the KDE 4 interface, etc., either. Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side, I found myself automatically and subconsciously moving the pointer to the right and clicking on an empty space, which was wasted effort and time, until I relearned that behavior. People who haven't used Linux / Gnome before don't have those expectations and optimizations, so it's not surprising that they will have a more positive view of Unity. Also, Canonical is trying to make Unity emulate OS X to some extent, so the interface meets some expectations of Mac users. They will probably respond more positively.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  > Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side... One of the first things I did when I upgraded to 10.04 was to move the window controls back to the right side. http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#toc_4 http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#...
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I think the same thing happened to me. I had been using a tiling WM for a while before Natty came out, but I decided to give Unity a try and I generally found I could make it work pretty acceptably with just a bit of messing around, more nicely than GNOME 2 actually. I still switched back, but not for several weeks.

bdhe 15y ago

The point about angle of escape was really interesting. However, my google fu failed me. The only relevant link mentioning angle of escape leads back to this post. Is there someone who can give me more information about this? (Or a more technical term, if the author uses the term colloquially). Once again, UI design never fails to fascinate me. The first concrete reason I ever came across that explained the superiority of the Mac user interface was the application of Fitt's law to the menu items. This looks like another solid point in favor of the Mac.

parkov 15y ago
I'm not familiar with any term to describe this, but "angle of escape" seemed fitting.
epistasis 15y ago
I don't think a proper term has ever been used before now. There was a lot of thought put into the angle of escape when accessing sub-menus in the pull down menus. See the answer to "Question 6" in the link below. If anybody know the proper term, Tog would, and he doesn't appear to know of one. http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
- smoyer 15y ago
  There's no reference to this in "Tog on Interface" either, but he repeatedly references Fitt's law. I think that applies to the "escape angle" as well.
  - sovok 15y ago
    I think it follows from Fitts' Law or rather is its reverse: If the cursor is outside an area, the bigger and closer this area is the easier it is to purposefully hit. ⇔ If the cursor is inside an area, the bigger this area is and the farther away its borders are, the harder it is to accidentally leave.
- stewbrew 15y ago

miles_matthias 15y ago

Nice post. I'm surprised you didn't talk about it's new 7-like dock. What programs did you use to do that highlighting?

parkov 15y ago
Thanks. As a newcomer to Ubuntu, I didn't realize how new the dock was. It seems straightforward and useful to me. But I'm sure there's controversy with it. Highlighting was done with Omnigraffle. It took some time find a good way to depict the angle of escape. I ended up rotating a quarter circle and cropping the edges off. Hacky but does the trick.
cpeterso 15y ago
What's a "7-like dock"?
- lazugod 15y ago
  Similar to Windows 7, I assume.

jvc26 15y ago

I found it interesting 'I got my hands on a PC to use as a web server (thanks Andrea!). Before I could get started on it though, I needed an operating system to install' ... but the version installed was Ubuntu Desktop, rather than Server ...?

sp332 15y ago
The server version is not very "user-friendly" - it doesn't even have X installed. They both have access to the same set of packages to install afterwards. So it's a lot easier to start with the Desktop version and then add some of the "server" packages, than it would be to start with the server version and install X, Unity, etc. afterward.
- keithpeter 15y ago
  Many people use servers without X and with a configuration that emphasises server tasks and security. They tend to access the server using ssh or other remote protocols. The choice of a graphical distribution did strike me as a little odd, as did the choice of a distribution with a support life measured in months. But, linux is about choice!
  - SkyMarshal 15y ago
    Heh, author is brand new to Linux, may not even be aware there is a such thing as GUI-less server OSes. Give him a year and he'll be running a dev box with minimal Arch + Xmonad base and multiple Ubuntu Servers in KVM.
    - starwed 15y ago
      You're wrong about that. >... these impressions come from someone who’s used mostly Windows at work and Mac at home. Sure, there’s a sprinkling of Solaris, IRIX, and Linux mixed in there, but I’ve never used Ubuntu, haven’t used any distribution of Linux in quite some time ... The author seems to be using it to prototype a research project as quickly as possible.

notatoad 15y ago

the good news: - in oneiric, the global menu bar is contiguously either clickable or not-clickable: when you hover over it, only clickable items are displayed. - immediately after install, the new software centre displays a button to launch that application, you don't have to browse the list anymore. also, the list of installed applications is now sorted into relevant categories rather than filled up with system packages. - the 'updates are available' message in oneiric's system menu makes it much more clear how to get updates, but i don't think it's really possible to teach ubuntu's package-management update paradigm through UI. it's not something new windows or mac converts will ever get immediately.

technomancy 15y ago
Indeed, it's a shame that he chose to review 11.04 nearly a week before 11.10 will be released.
- andrewl-hn 15y ago
  He needed a version of Linux to get the job done so he chose a distro and downloaded the latest stable version. I can't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't expect a casual user (even a programmer) to be aware of Ubuntu release schedule.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

capkutay 15y ago

I'm also a long time mac user, running the new Ubuntu on my desktop. Couldn't be happier with it, the UI is clean and user friendly. Feels like I'm using a slightly modified version of OS X. Apt-get can be useful at times...always sure to do my large-scale projects on Ubuntu.

DanBC 15y ago

About the un-clickable program name in the menu bar. I agree that it'd be nice, like OS X, to have that as a menu. OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. Linux is a lot more free. So, a "preferences" menu item could go in 'file' or 'edit' or 'view' or 'tools'; or maybe only some of the preferences are there and the rest are in a config file. It took me some getting used to.

masklinn 15y ago
> OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. No, not in the least. It's technically possible (indeed, trivial using Interface Builder) to remove all these menus (the application menu is probably the only one whose removal may lead to your application crashing), and move or remove just about all of their content. Neither OSX nor Apple forces anything (at least outside the AppStore, I do not know if there are imposed standards there). On the other hand: 1. Apple provides extensive application templates in IB, they're generally used unless there's a good reason not to 2. Apple publishes extensive Human Interface Guidelines, the latest revision of the "OSX Human Interface Guidelines" document (2011-07-26) is 276 pages (a low actually, in 2009 it was more than 350 pages), as a PDF it weighs 26MB. And much like the IB templates, it is followed unless there's a reason not to 3. users care about consistency, when guidelines are broken for no good reason users will generally make their displeasure known. And because OSX has a thriving "indie" development scene (paid, low-cost software by very small teams) this generates an environment where interface care and consistency is taken pretty seriously.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Yes, I agree. My post was worded very poorly. Thank you for the corrections! I didn't realise that Apple didn't force the HIG. I do enjoy the care and thoughtful interface decisions.
  - rahoulb 15y ago
    It's not that Apple don't force the HIG. But if you break them you need to have a good reason as your users expect you to follow the HIG.

ch0wn 15y ago

I got the Firefox 7.0 update through the regular update channels a few days after it was on the Mozilla FTP servers. So actually, the update was even before the official release. I have no idea why there was no update available for OP.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
No kidding. It made me sad to see my favorite Linux/package management feature (misused?) slighted especially when it did in fact work quite smoothly.

vasco 15y ago

"My greatest concern was that I’d have to do a lot of installing and configuring before I could get anything meaningful done. All I wanted was a standard setup, and to not derail focus from my work." And yet he had the time to document the whole experience at the same time?

cpeterso 15y ago

Why does the Unity menu bar's File menu truncate the application name to "Firefox V"? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with long names. I'm assuming "Firefox V" was something like "Firefox Version 4", which isn't an unusually long name (especially for such a popular application and one that is a default application for Ubuntu). They shouldn't even include the version number in the application name. Joe User doesn't care.

windsurfer 15y ago
Why does the Unity menu bar's File menu truncate the application name to "Firefox V"? Mac OS X shifts the menu bar to the right for applications with long names. The author's screenshot hides the fact that the menu bar is hidden when the mouse is not over the top bar. When your mouse is elsewhere, the entire window's name (In my case "Hacker news | Add Comment - Mozilla Firefox") takes up the top bar.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
It says "Firefox Web Browser". They've tweaked this behavior several times. Without hover it displays the title of the window (unless you have many, non-fullscreen instances, it which case it is just the application title). When you hover, it truncate/fades the application title to show you the menu. They opted for truncation because they want the leftmost menu to appear in a consistent location.

EGreg 15y ago

I just wanted to correct something about Fitts' Law. The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant. In fact, if you throw the mouse in the upper right direction, it will hit the top right corner no matter which edge it hits first. Thus you actually can hit the corner spots without even aiming in a particular square. Try this on a mac: throw your pointer into the top left or top right corners, and press the button. You WILL open the menu, even though it may not have been obvious that you would -- the highlighted region around the icon does not extend to the edge. So in fact, it's ok to make them smaller.

randallsquared 15y ago
The article talks about how big the angle is, but this is not very relevant. That's not what he means. The "angle of escape" referred to is the angle at which you can move your mouse out of the target icon to a menu item after the menu is open. If you go too far horizontally first, the menu will close in favor of a different menu.
- EGreg 15y ago
  aha, got it.

macspoofing 15y ago

I dunno. Windows 7 and Mac OSX kinda make Gnome look dated.

dhughes 15y ago

I recently (about two weeks ago) bought my first Apple ever, a Macbook Pro. It took forever to find out function+backspace=real backspace not delete Everything seems to be arranged around single clicks any right-clicking seems alien on a Mac. It's very glossy and cartoons but you can tell the hardware and OS were made hand-in-hand or at least work very well with each other. It's pretty but annoying at times it's has a hint of like Linux, I opened Terminal to feel at home, but it's like Linux out at its grandmothers on it's best behaviour. I wouldn't say either is better than the other but different for sure although like I said very similar way more so than Windows and Linux or Mac and Windows. Now if only I could stop that creepy "killer clowns on acid in a dark alley" start-up sound.

pnathan 15y ago
Welcome to the hivemind. :-) I have grown very accustomed to the control-click motion for 'right' clicking. I don't think right-clicking is very alien, at least in the programs I use. Best of happiness in your new Mac!
- tomcreighton 15y ago
  Are you using a one-button mouse, or no mouse whatsoever? OS X is pretty right-click friendly out of the box.
  - pnathan 15y ago
    No mouse. Laptop. Occasionally I plug in a two-button mouse, but that's limited to fairly specific occasions when I'm actually mousing around. Most of the time I am either scrolling or keyboarding.
    - ericd 15y ago
      Two fingers on the mousepad+click make right clicking pretty easy. Alternately, you can make clicking on the bottom right of the trackpad into a right click. The trackpad prefpane gives you a pretty good array of options to customize its behavior.

vacri 15y ago

"Bad: Firefox 4 instead of the up-to-date Firefox 7!" Official releases: - Ubuntu 11.04: 28 April 2011 - Firefox 5: 21 June 2011 - Firefox 7: 27 September 2011 (5 days ago) Yes, that's a valid criticism: I used a 6-month-old official installer and didn't get last month's software without doing any form of update whatsoever! Clearly a failing of ubuntu!

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
I think the author has a point: it would be nice if Firefox advised the user that a newer version is available (or, alternately, simply upgraded silently a la Chrome). I've been a Ubuntu user for a few years now, and it generally ranges from cumbersome to downright difficult to upgrade to the newest Firefox version. There's a reason hacks like Ubuntuzilla exist.
- kinetik 15y ago
  Firefox does this by default, but its built-in update mechanism is disabled in Ubuntu-shipped versions in favour of Ubuntu's package management.
- vacri 15y ago
  If you give it longer than 7 minutes, Ubuntu will prompt you to update - not just firefox, but a whole range of things. Firefox is just another part of the system, and doesn't really have any reason to update RIGHT NOW! as opposed to once a day when the usual updates come through. In any case, if you're the kind of person that knows what actual features you will gain from FF7 over FF4 (other than just "sweet, a higher numbah"), you're a power user and should know better than to make the complaint he did - you should be able to do the extremely mild googling required on your new, unfamiliar OS to make it happen. On another tangent, this kind of comment in the article is one of the big problems with FF deciding to do away with minor numbers and make every release a major number. "But FF 4.0 is so old, we're up to 7.0 now!! Bad!!" when it was the current release a mere 103 days ago.