5 ms·

I don't really understand what the author is trying to say. Granted, it's been a while since I used Ubuntu, but as a developer I mainly live in my editor and te

by div 15y ago

I don't really understand what the author is trying to say. Granted, it's been a while since I used Ubuntu, but as a developer I mainly live in my editor and terminal. Anything I ever wanted is just an apt-get away and is mostly installed in a sensible way. Ubuntu simplifying desktop features and changing defaults to be easier for users like my mom sounds like a great thing to happen to Linux. That stuff is mostly orthogonal to developers who, you know, know how to deviate from the standard configuration and tools.

gue5t 15y ago
Ubuntu fails to showcase many of the best aspects of Linux as a system. Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else. Instead of an environment in which "users" are at the mercy of "developers", the instruction manual is included. Anyone can change their computer's behavior to the extent of their choosing--and there's nobody to tell them not to. Ubuntu takes this and ignores it completely, trying instead to copy user interface features from other projects and environments to win users that like the idea of cheap software. Not everyone is a kernel hacker, obviously... but Ubuntu should be proud that on Linux every user /can/ become one if they so desire. To emphasize the same read-only one-size-fits-all thinking that Apple has popularized is to disregard entirely the philosophy of the foundation on which Ubuntu exists. The argument that Ubuntu is a pragmatic, get-things-done distribution is founded in fact; it certainly is. But that doesn't mean it has to make it worse for software development and make it difficult to actually alter your system in meaningful ways. I ran Ubuntu for over a year and every attempt to dig into the system's internals (init scripts, configuration tools, what apt actually /did/, etc.) resulted in frustration because of the great complexity and the lack of any help that the OS itself provided. Comparing distros like Arch Linux that guide their users into the system in order to make the changes they want, Ubuntu is about as read-only as I've ever seen in an open-source Linux-based system. Even so, Arch isn't a distro for beginners by any stretch of imagination. And there I think Ubuntu has the ability to come out far ahead, if they embrace the fact that they are producing a system designed to be improved by the "end-users". A Linux distribution is not a product like a commercial software package. It's an environment that should foster both productivity and learning. To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Sure, there may be a table to craft today, but improving at the craft of doing so is an important goal--and Ubuntu should help its users improve in their usage of their systems by helping them take small, friendly steps into improving the software they use in real ways. Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. Apple can't do that because they have to keep their users dependent. Ubuntu is missing out on its greatest source of potential.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  > Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else. While this is true, it's simply not a feature the average user wants at all. They just want it to be simple, and work. > To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it. > Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. They aren't equals, have you met most users? You're arguing from a programmers perspective, not a typical computer users.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Who are "most users" here? I've only seen one or two linux distros in the wild that weren't being used by devs or other power users.
    - oblique63 15y ago
      That may be true, but isn't that what Ubuntu is trying to change? Sure, as a dev/power user I might be annoyed with some of the changes they make here and there, but as a linux supporter, I'd be much more annoyed if they weren't actively trying to expand to a broader audience. Regardless of how they're going about it, I'm just glad they're actually doing something in that area.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >They just want it to be simple, and work. And yet, this isn't orthogonal to still keeping it extensible, transparent and open for learning. Yes, most users might not want or need this. But there might be some who get drawn into it. Never block anyone from learning. >Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it. You misunderstood the analogy, I think. Everyone is a carpenter in some way. The OS isn't the table, it's the tool. >They aren't equals, have you met most users? Yet again, you misunderstood. "Equals" means to stop treating users like they are generally unable (and unwilling) to learn. Worse, Ubuntu/Unity (actively or passively) hinders people who are willing to learn. I'm not saying you should force people to learn. I'm saying you should give them sane defaults, and the option to learn how to change them if they chose to do so (and ideally, with an easy and obvious way to restore the defaults).
Rusky 15y ago
The problem is that Unity doesn't have much in the way of deviation from the standard configuration. They're not just changing defaults, they're removing everything else. This is a problem not for people who are already developers, because they will just install something else and move on, but for new users who won't have anything to discover. The article said "In fact I think Linux has a tendency to encourage average computer users to become power users once they spend some time with it." This may not be the best thing for everyone, but that's what the article was getting at.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Why should new users have "something to discover"? They want to use the machine, not discover how it works.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Perhaps true, perhaps not. Some people don't want to invest time and energy to save time and energy later. Others do. A good Linux desktop should be able to cater to both types of user.
    - Samuel_Michon 15y ago
      "Some people don't want to invest time and energy to save time and energy later." I believe the phrasing you were looking for is "the vast majority". Apple concentrates on providing a good experience for that vast majority. Everyone else can use OS X's CLI or tools like Automator, AppleScript, Xcode, Dashcode and MacRuby (all for free, albeit not all of it is 'free software').
      - jrockway 15y ago
        That's simply not true. People pay thousands of dollars to attend Excel classes which show them all the little 99.99%-of-people-will-never-need-this-feature features, and they then use these features to be more productive in their work. If they were programmers, they wouldn't need those features, because they are simple enough to implement. But they're somewhere between programmers and users: they can't program, but they can learn a lot about how to use software. To make those users productive, you have to give them a lot of features. Yes, the average person that visits YouTube and Facebook doesn't need a featureful desktop. But many people want to use their $2000 computer for more than that.
jasonkostempski 15y ago
I agree that they should come up with a nice default user friendly setup but they MUST also allow the user to toggle on/off the bits of fluff they want or don't want and they shouldn't have to search Google to figure out how. Also, they have to do fancy animations right, if they're consistently choppy they are no longer a positive feature. My machine runs Windows 7 with all the fluff smoothly, they need to hit that point. Since you haven't used it, all I have to ask is if the Alt+Tab screen took a full second or more to show up would you be happy even when just using an editor and terminal? I've been using Unity for over a month to give it a fair shot but I'm currently installing Xubuntu and I probably won't try Unity again until I consistently see people saying 'Whoa, check it out, they got it right'.
- seabee 15y ago
  What are your specs like? I've used it on my netbook and a cheap 2006 Dell laptop (no animations) and a dual-core Atom board (animations) and everything had been smooth and quick. I wonder if the problem is driver support.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    I was extremely annoyed by a built-in 300-500ms lag inserted to unhide the Unity panel itself. I guess "quick" is a relative term. I find Unity to be a huge regression in usability.
- gbog 15y ago
  I suppose I'm the only one to have thought about fancy animations as positive feature. First line in my install logs for Linux or windows: rm animations
- hannes2000 15y ago
  The show-up-delay of the Window Switcher can be configured in ccsm (In the "Ubuntu Unity Plugin" section)
aufreak3 15y ago
I don't know whether you used "users like my mom" just as a manner of speech, but in my case that is literally true - my mom does use Ubuntu and I quite appreciate the simplification of Ubuntu's interface that's happened over time which has made it possible for my mom to use it.
- Peaker 15y ago
  My dad liked Ubuntu, until the Unity interface. There are anecdotes either way. I have my long list of Unity bugs -- I don't think Ubuntu should have put all their chips on that awful implementation of a mediocre interface. I agree with Eric Raymond that the most worrying thing is not the poor quality of the new Ubuntu release, but that new releases are going backwards. That takes away any hope for improvement.
  - mise 15y ago
    Unity is still unusable at times due to its window management bugs. I way really hoping for better upon its second iteration. (But this just makes me sound complainy.)
gujk 15y ago
You are correct, but in your absence you may have missed what Canonical did with the 11.04 release to make a mess out of everything.
dfc 15y ago
If its been a while since you used Ubuntu do you think that might be part of the reason that you do not understand the point of the article?
spinchange 15y ago
I think the fact that you haven't used it lately explains why you don't understand what the author is trying to say. There are plenty of "mom-level" user frustrations with this release too. (my young kids, who just play games, hate it) I would sum up the article as such: Ubuntu needs to focus on being the best Ubuntu it can be for its users. If Ubuntu tries to be Apple (imposing arbitrary UI choices and tastes on them, with little to no recourse) it will neither be good at that or what they were good at to begin with.

by div 15y ago

gue5t 15y ago

Ubuntu fails to showcase many of the best aspects of Linux as a system. Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else. Instead of an environment in which "users" are at the mercy of "developers", the instruction manual is included. Anyone can change their computer's behavior to the extent of their choosing--and there's nobody to tell them not to. Ubuntu takes this and ignores it completely, trying instead to copy user interface features from other projects and environments to win users that like the idea of cheap software. Not everyone is a kernel hacker, obviously... but Ubuntu should be proud that on Linux every user /can/ become one if they so desire. To emphasize the same read-only one-size-fits-all thinking that Apple has popularized is to disregard entirely the philosophy of the foundation on which Ubuntu exists. The argument that Ubuntu is a pragmatic, get-things-done distribution is founded in fact; it certainly is. But that doesn't mean it has to make it worse for software development and make it difficult to actually alter your system in meaningful ways. I ran Ubuntu for over a year and every attempt to dig into the system's internals (init scripts, configuration tools, what apt actually /did/, etc.) resulted in frustration because of the great complexity and the lack of any help that the OS itself provided. Comparing distros like Arch Linux that guide their users into the system in order to make the changes they want, Ubuntu is about as read-only as I've ever seen in an open-source Linux-based system. Even so, Arch isn't a distro for beginners by any stretch of imagination. And there I think Ubuntu has the ability to come out far ahead, if they embrace the fact that they are producing a system designed to be improved by the "end-users". A Linux distribution is not a product like a commercial software package. It's an environment that should foster both productivity and learning. To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Sure, there may be a table to craft today, but improving at the craft of doing so is an important goal--and Ubuntu should help its users improve in their usage of their systems by helping them take small, friendly steps into improving the software they use in real ways. Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. Apple can't do that because they have to keep their users dependent. Ubuntu is missing out on its greatest source of potential.

gnaritas 15y ago
> Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else. While this is true, it's simply not a feature the average user wants at all. They just want it to be simple, and work. > To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools. Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it. > Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals. They aren't equals, have you met most users? You're arguing from a programmers perspective, not a typical computer users.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Who are "most users" here? I've only seen one or two linux distros in the wild that weren't being used by devs or other power users.
  - oblique63 15y ago
    That may be true, but isn't that what Ubuntu is trying to change? Sure, as a dev/power user I might be annoyed with some of the changes they make here and there, but as a linux supporter, I'd be much more annoyed if they weren't actively trying to expand to a broader audience. Regardless of how they're going about it, I'm just glad they're actually doing something in that area.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >They just want it to be simple, and work. And yet, this isn't orthogonal to still keeping it extensible, transparent and open for learning. Yes, most users might not want or need this. But there might be some who get drawn into it. Never block anyone from learning. >Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it. You misunderstood the analogy, I think. Everyone is a carpenter in some way. The OS isn't the table, it's the tool. >They aren't equals, have you met most users? Yet again, you misunderstood. "Equals" means to stop treating users like they are generally unable (and unwilling) to learn. Worse, Ubuntu/Unity (actively or passively) hinders people who are willing to learn. I'm not saying you should force people to learn. I'm saying you should give them sane defaults, and the option to learn how to change them if they chose to do so (and ideally, with an easy and obvious way to restore the defaults).

Rusky 15y ago

The problem is that Unity doesn't have much in the way of deviation from the standard configuration. They're not just changing defaults, they're removing everything else. This is a problem not for people who are already developers, because they will just install something else and move on, but for new users who won't have anything to discover. The article said "In fact I think Linux has a tendency to encourage average computer users to become power users once they spend some time with it." This may not be the best thing for everyone, but that's what the article was getting at.

ricardobeat 15y ago
Why should new users have "something to discover"? They want to use the machine, not discover how it works.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Perhaps true, perhaps not. Some people don't want to invest time and energy to save time and energy later. Others do. A good Linux desktop should be able to cater to both types of user.
  - Samuel_Michon 15y ago
    "Some people don't want to invest time and energy to save time and energy later." I believe the phrasing you were looking for is "the vast majority". Apple concentrates on providing a good experience for that vast majority. Everyone else can use OS X's CLI or tools like Automator, AppleScript, Xcode, Dashcode and MacRuby (all for free, albeit not all of it is 'free software').
    - jrockway 15y ago
      That's simply not true. People pay thousands of dollars to attend Excel classes which show them all the little 99.99%-of-people-will-never-need-this-feature features, and they then use these features to be more productive in their work. If they were programmers, they wouldn't need those features, because they are simple enough to implement. But they're somewhere between programmers and users: they can't program, but they can learn a lot about how to use software. To make those users productive, you have to give them a lot of features. Yes, the average person that visits YouTube and Facebook doesn't need a featureful desktop. But many people want to use their $2000 computer for more than that.

jasonkostempski 15y ago

I agree that they should come up with a nice default user friendly setup but they MUST also allow the user to toggle on/off the bits of fluff they want or don't want and they shouldn't have to search Google to figure out how. Also, they have to do fancy animations right, if they're consistently choppy they are no longer a positive feature. My machine runs Windows 7 with all the fluff smoothly, they need to hit that point. Since you haven't used it, all I have to ask is if the Alt+Tab screen took a full second or more to show up would you be happy even when just using an editor and terminal? I've been using Unity for over a month to give it a fair shot but I'm currently installing Xubuntu and I probably won't try Unity again until I consistently see people saying 'Whoa, check it out, they got it right'.

seabee 15y ago
What are your specs like? I've used it on my netbook and a cheap 2006 Dell laptop (no animations) and a dual-core Atom board (animations) and everything had been smooth and quick. I wonder if the problem is driver support.
- Peaker 15y ago
  I was extremely annoyed by a built-in 300-500ms lag inserted to unhide the Unity panel itself. I guess "quick" is a relative term. I find Unity to be a huge regression in usability.
gbog 15y ago
I suppose I'm the only one to have thought about fancy animations as positive feature. First line in my install logs for Linux or windows: rm animations
hannes2000 15y ago
The show-up-delay of the Window Switcher can be configured in ccsm (In the "Ubuntu Unity Plugin" section)

aufreak3 15y ago

I don't know whether you used "users like my mom" just as a manner of speech, but in my case that is literally true - my mom does use Ubuntu and I quite appreciate the simplification of Ubuntu's interface that's happened over time which has made it possible for my mom to use it.

Peaker 15y ago
My dad liked Ubuntu, until the Unity interface. There are anecdotes either way. I have my long list of Unity bugs -- I don't think Ubuntu should have put all their chips on that awful implementation of a mediocre interface. I agree with Eric Raymond that the most worrying thing is not the poor quality of the new Ubuntu release, but that new releases are going backwards. That takes away any hope for improvement.
- mise 15y ago
  Unity is still unusable at times due to its window management bugs. I way really hoping for better upon its second iteration. (But this just makes me sound complainy.)

gujk 15y ago

You are correct, but in your absence you may have missed what Canonical did with the 11.04 release to make a mess out of everything.

dfc 15y ago

If its been a while since you used Ubuntu do you think that might be part of the reason that you do not understand the point of the article?

spinchange 15y ago

I think the fact that you haven't used it lately explains why you don't understand what the author is trying to say. There are plenty of "mom-level" user frustrations with this release too. (my young kids, who just play games, hate it) I would sum up the article as such: Ubuntu needs to focus on being the best Ubuntu it can be for its users. If Ubuntu tries to be Apple (imposing arbitrary UI choices and tastes on them, with little to no recourse) it will neither be good at that or what they were good at to begin with.