7 ms·

The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data, and completely antithetical

The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data, and completely antithetical to the kinds of philosophies that undergird Linux and Ubuntu. But really, the core of the issue that's been raised by Unity is that Ubuntu seems to be moving away from catering to power users to cutting features essential to them in favor of appealing to more amateur users. One can lament that decision, and even disagree with it, but I don't know how fair I think it is to criticize Unity for lacking those kind of power user features. After all, it isn't like power users are exactly wanting when it comes to replacement options in the Linux space.

IvarTJ 15y ago
But aren’t the core users the most important? Shouldn’t Gnome 3 instead have been a spin-off or separate project from traditional Gnome?
- stephen_g 15y ago
  No. There's just not enough resources (developers, designers, testers, etc) to do that. The Gnome project just decided that it was time to try and make a desktop that wasn't based on the Windows 95 (and up) desktop metaphor, and the only way that was going to work was to commit completely to that goal.
naner 15y ago
The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data I disagree. Enlightenment has been doing this from the start because it is faster to read and write than a specially formatted ASCII file and because the user is expected to do all configuration through the graphical interface. antithetical to the kinds of philosophies that undergird Linux This somewhat true but I believe editing text files by hand is the type of thing Ubuntu is trying to move away from. ESR is an old hat who has been using Linux since way back in the day and is set in his ways. I am too, but he should know Ubuntu isn't for him. They are focused on ease of use for new users, not accommodating all the idiosyncrasies of the old ones.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  I've got plenty of text files I don't regularly edit by hand. However, when the time comes: - I've got a multitude of tools to choose from to evaluate and modify the files (editors, search tools, scripted modification, etc.). - I can see with my own eyes what the contents of the file are, and generally, what is wrong. GNOME went the wrong way on this a long time ago by allowing non-intelligible values within gconf, a'la Microsoft's Registry. - I can make atomic edits and deletes to/from the file (add/remove a line). I can carry those atomic edits around with me (configuration bag of tricks). - I CAN COMMENT THE MOTHERLOVIN FILE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FUCK I PUT (OR REMOVED) A SPECIFIC VALUE. Configuration files are NOT there for the convenience of the computer / interpreter / system they are managing, they are there for the administrators to understand what is configured and why. Removing the ability to comment files, or to make atomic updates in a commented system (e.g: git) removes a core value of configuration management. Yes, GNOME jumped the shark, but it happened years and years ago.
  - jedbrown 15y ago
    Add to this: I can put it under version control, back it up meaningfully, and find out what a GUI control actually changed and revert it cleanly.
    - vrotaru 15y ago
      gsetttings list-recursively > gsettings-all.txt The reverse action is left as an exercise to the reader. Or wait.. for line in $(cat gsettings-all.txt); do gsettings set $line; done PS. Ubuntu can be blamed for Unity, which is just another shell (maybe not the last) but that settings stuff is way beyond their influence.
      - kragen 15y ago
        Hey, I'm still using an old version of GNOME; would you be willing to post the output of gsettings list-recursively | wc gsettings list-recursively | gzip -9c | wc -c to help us understand the issues?
Peaker 15y ago
Unity also simply regresses on many UI issues, relevant not only to power users: * When a maximized window is behind an active non-maximized window, the panel serves as its title bar. But it actually spells out the name of the active window. Very confusing. * Additionally, in the same situation, all of they standard mouse gestures on the panel (e.g: double-click to unmaximize) do not work. Maximized windows don't get the right-click-title gesture to work at all. * No window list at a glance (useful for remembering your context/state with the UI) * Hides important buttons such as close window, as well as the menus, where non-power-users will not know to look. * Panel unhide takes a relatively long time -- slowing down almost every interaction with the UI. * Workspace switcher does not support window drag, unlike the gnome panel workspace applets. * Workspace switcher requires multiple selections to switch to a window. * Alt-tab switches applications, not windows, which is more confusing, as it associates unrelated windows together, as if the mere fact they're implemented by a certain application necessarily means they relate. This also requires more keystrokes to reach the window you want -- when you don't have many of them in a workspace, which is a typical situation for organized users that actually use workspaces. I could go on and on. Unity is an immature, alpha-quality piece of work that seems to have been thrown out because of a deadline.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Many of these traits are shared with OS X. It's a different mindset, and I'm sure Canonical has done plenty of research on usability. From what I've seen most people who arent savvy computer users happen to like it.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Please do not slander OS X like that. I've been a happy OS X user since 2005. I look at GNOME 3/Unity and I vomit. Vigorously. If this was an attempt to be Mac-like, then it was pure cargo-cult UI design. They clearly have no understanding of the actual design process. The last Linux desktop environment I was reasonably happy with was KDE 2.x. I tolerated 3.x.
    - morsch 15y ago
angrycoder 15y ago
The problem is, Unity has done nothing but alienate power users. This is a huge problem for Ubuntu. The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold. Its not like Ubuntu has a big marketing budget or a Steve Jobs type evangelist.
- limeblack 15y ago
  I do agree the binary blob is a terrible idea, but I've found the new interface to be fairly positive for new users. My brother who hasn't considered ubuntu for years, installed after seeing the new interface. It appeals to the mac crowd with the whole dock interface. The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. Having a simple and dumb interface can be a good thing for new users.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > * The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. * Except configuration is being hidden in binary blobs! And "The Ubuntu Way" seems to be being forced on "power users". It's a great shame. Linux does need an easy to use OS, and Ubuntu has filled that role for a while now, and will continue to do so. But the great thing about Ubuntu was that power users could use it as well. Now some people are going to migrate to other distributions (debian for power users, mint for people who dislike the idea of an "easy to use, linux for newbies").
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  > The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold. If that was really the case then Linux would be everywhere in the desktop by now.
  - JMStewy 15y ago
    This doesn't make any sense at all. The question at stake is "how does Ubuntu get the new users that it does?" Try the same line of argument in a different context: "Our television ad campaign is responsible for almost the entirety of our increase in market share." "Impossible! If that were true, we would have 100% market share!"
pmr_ 15y ago
Is see the freedom of choice as one of the core benefits of Open Software. But losing power users to other distributions is bad for software that depends on user contribution and support. If the people that contribute most of the knowledge to discussions on forums and IRC channels switch to other distributions live isn't getting better for the amateur-user, it is getting worse. If user contributions are part of your business model you should also try to appeal to those users that are capable of delivering contributions.

IvarTJ 15y ago

But aren’t the core users the most important? Shouldn’t Gnome 3 instead have been a spin-off or separate project from traditional Gnome?

stephen_g 15y ago
No. There's just not enough resources (developers, designers, testers, etc) to do that. The Gnome project just decided that it was time to try and make a desktop that wasn't based on the Windows 95 (and up) desktop metaphor, and the only way that was going to work was to commit completely to that goal.

naner 15y ago

The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data I disagree. Enlightenment has been doing this from the start because it is faster to read and write than a specially formatted ASCII file and because the user is expected to do all configuration through the graphical interface. antithetical to the kinds of philosophies that undergird Linux This somewhat true but I believe editing text files by hand is the type of thing Ubuntu is trying to move away from. ESR is an old hat who has been using Linux since way back in the day and is set in his ways. I am too, but he should know Ubuntu isn't for him. They are focused on ease of use for new users, not accommodating all the idiosyncrasies of the old ones.

dredmorbius 15y ago
I've got plenty of text files I don't regularly edit by hand. However, when the time comes: - I've got a multitude of tools to choose from to evaluate and modify the files (editors, search tools, scripted modification, etc.). - I can see with my own eyes what the contents of the file are, and generally, what is wrong. GNOME went the wrong way on this a long time ago by allowing non-intelligible values within gconf, a'la Microsoft's Registry. - I can make atomic edits and deletes to/from the file (add/remove a line). I can carry those atomic edits around with me (configuration bag of tricks). - I CAN COMMENT THE MOTHERLOVIN FILE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FUCK I PUT (OR REMOVED) A SPECIFIC VALUE. Configuration files are NOT there for the convenience of the computer / interpreter / system they are managing, they are there for the administrators to understand what is configured and why. Removing the ability to comment files, or to make atomic updates in a commented system (e.g: git) removes a core value of configuration management. Yes, GNOME jumped the shark, but it happened years and years ago.
- jedbrown 15y ago
  Add to this: I can put it under version control, back it up meaningfully, and find out what a GUI control actually changed and revert it cleanly.
  - vrotaru 15y ago
    gsetttings list-recursively > gsettings-all.txt The reverse action is left as an exercise to the reader. Or wait.. for line in $(cat gsettings-all.txt); do gsettings set $line; done PS. Ubuntu can be blamed for Unity, which is just another shell (maybe not the last) but that settings stuff is way beyond their influence.
    - kragen 15y ago
      Hey, I'm still using an old version of GNOME; would you be willing to post the output of gsettings list-recursively | wc gsettings list-recursively | gzip -9c | wc -c to help us understand the issues?

Peaker 15y ago

Unity also simply regresses on many UI issues, relevant not only to power users: * When a maximized window is behind an active non-maximized window, the panel serves as its title bar. But it actually spells out the name of the active window. Very confusing. * Additionally, in the same situation, all of they standard mouse gestures on the panel (e.g: double-click to unmaximize) do not work. Maximized windows don't get the right-click-title gesture to work at all. * No window list at a glance (useful for remembering your context/state with the UI) * Hides important buttons such as close window, as well as the menus, where non-power-users will not know to look. * Panel unhide takes a relatively long time -- slowing down almost every interaction with the UI. * Workspace switcher does not support window drag, unlike the gnome panel workspace applets. * Workspace switcher requires multiple selections to switch to a window. * Alt-tab switches applications, not windows, which is more confusing, as it associates unrelated windows together, as if the mere fact they're implemented by a certain application necessarily means they relate. This also requires more keystrokes to reach the window you want -- when you don't have many of them in a workspace, which is a typical situation for organized users that actually use workspaces. I could go on and on. Unity is an immature, alpha-quality piece of work that seems to have been thrown out because of a deadline.

ricardobeat 15y ago
Many of these traits are shared with OS X. It's a different mindset, and I'm sure Canonical has done plenty of research on usability. From what I've seen most people who arent savvy computer users happen to like it.
- nknight 15y ago
  Please do not slander OS X like that. I've been a happy OS X user since 2005. I look at GNOME 3/Unity and I vomit. Vigorously. If this was an attempt to be Mac-like, then it was pure cargo-cult UI design. They clearly have no understanding of the actual design process. The last Linux desktop environment I was reasonably happy with was KDE 2.x. I tolerated 3.x.
  - morsch 15y ago

angrycoder 15y ago

The problem is, Unity has done nothing but alienate power users. This is a huge problem for Ubuntu. The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold. Its not like Ubuntu has a big marketing budget or a Steve Jobs type evangelist.

limeblack 15y ago
I do agree the binary blob is a terrible idea, but I've found the new interface to be fairly positive for new users. My brother who hasn't considered ubuntu for years, installed after seeing the new interface. It appeals to the mac crowd with the whole dock interface. The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. Having a simple and dumb interface can be a good thing for new users.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > * The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. * Except configuration is being hidden in binary blobs! And "The Ubuntu Way" seems to be being forced on "power users". It's a great shame. Linux does need an easy to use OS, and Ubuntu has filled that role for a while now, and will continue to do so. But the great thing about Ubuntu was that power users could use it as well. Now some people are going to migrate to other distributions (debian for power users, mint for people who dislike the idea of an "easy to use, linux for newbies").
gldalmaso 15y ago
> The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold. If that was really the case then Linux would be everywhere in the desktop by now.
- JMStewy 15y ago
  This doesn't make any sense at all. The question at stake is "how does Ubuntu get the new users that it does?" Try the same line of argument in a different context: "Our television ad campaign is responsible for almost the entirety of our increase in market share." "Impossible! If that were true, we would have 100% market share!"

pmr_ 15y ago

Is see the freedom of choice as one of the core benefits of Open Software. But losing power users to other distributions is bad for software that depends on user contribution and support. If the people that contribute most of the knowledge to discussions on forums and IRC channels switch to other distributions live isn't getting better for the amateur-user, it is getting worse. If user contributions are part of your business model you should also try to appeal to those users that are capable of delivering contributions.