7 ms·

Ubuntu’s move to Unity is the best thing that ever happened to Linux

70 points by kht786 15y ago

bigfoot 15y ago
"As for Unity; its incomplete, buggy and complicated." -- four lines later: "The non geek will love Unity. Its simple to use [...]". The author fails to be consistent even in a single paragraph. Even the post's title contradicts its content.
- sp332 15y ago
  Note the present tense in the first quote and the future tense in the second. Unity will be a very user-friendly system once they fix more of the bugs.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    The problem is, by the time they have fixed the bugs and made it nice they will spot something else shiny and start again. So you'll get 2 or 3 nice stable releases before being baptized by fire again.
    - jeltz 15y ago
      Indeed, look at all the work canonical spent into speeding up boot and how it a couple of releases later regressed heavily almost back to where we started. Stories like this gives me little faith in Canonical managing to keep on improving Unity.
andyking 15y ago
It's been "the year of desktop Linux" every year since about 2006 for me. Who cares what everyone else is using? Just find a system you're happy with and stick with it.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Who cares what everyone else is using?""" A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster. The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?". Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"? We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using. We don't care what they are using. Any of your arguments as to why we should would apply equally well to cars, but you never see people have that conversation.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      """I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using.""" So, by you own logic, nobody cares to read what you and he are using, except you and him respectively. Which was kind of, my point. """We don't care what they are using. """ Good for you. This thread is about adoption, though, and about caring about what they are using --and specifically whether Unity is good for mass Linux adoption.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "So, by you own logic" That is your logic, not my own. I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.
        dextorious 15y ago
        """I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.""" So, you: (a) "care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to [your] own", but: (b) "[you] don't care what operating system he is using.". I fail to see how (a) can be conciliated with (b), given that he is writing about "what operating system he is using", that is the very thing that you "don't care about". It's not the only part where you defy logic and embrace contradiction... Responding to another comment you invoke the car analogy to invalidate my argument, but when someone confronts you you tell him that: "It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern." Are you not aware that we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the second case here, "Linux on the desktop"? Is there any special logic employed here?
jiggy2011 15y ago
Urgh, where to start? Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC. It's neither consistent with what their used to nor does it create any kind of superior paradigm to what already exists. Sure you can browse the web , play music and do the odd spreadsheet etc with it , big whoop we've been doing this for years , it would have been exciting in the late 90s not now. The barrier for Ubuntu is not really it's UI. It's problems like having a really horrible flash player, poor selection of applications for many tasks (not to mention games). Not to mention other nasties like pulseaudio,networkmanager,dependency problems etc. Ubuntu is so desperately trying to be a cut price apple, now they want to move to tablets.. Ok so they will have the same problem they have had on the desktop for the last 20 years, lack of consumer applications.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  "Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC." 'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going to use. Always. What a Linux desktop looks like and aspires to be and how well/whether it works means nothing in this context. Nothing. Numbers-wise, people using Linux on the desktop are: geeks (an insignificant percentage of PC users) and friends/parents of geeks (an insignificant percentage the former). We're like flies buzzing around a very small pile of elephant dung (but it's really good dung); meanwhile the elephant has lumbered off, out of site.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Not totally sure, yes there is always going to be a big advantage to whatever comes with the PC. I think if there was a clear sales pitch that could be used to sell Linux desktop as an alternative to Windows there would be enough people willing it try switching to give it critical mass which would then cause OEMs to ship it with some of their computers. Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc. Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make? It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?
jenhsun 15y ago
I already switch one of my production PC to Hackintosh due to Unity. I believe OP's just a propaganda anyway.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Maybe Unity isn't the best possible UI they could've made, but the strategy is definitely a good one. They need an UI that's as easy as possible to use if Linux will ever be destined for regular consumers. On the other hand, they might've done this too late. Android will probably be the popular solution on all devices and machines that could have been running it.
jjm 15y ago
I held off until couple days ago on installing 11 with Unity and was very frustrated... I didn't want to believe it, but it was way too dumbed down for me. I was almost insulted... If I want pretty GFX and UI I'll just use my mac. Yes, you can disable Unity... But the issue for me is a lot of man power will be spent on it. Manpower that could be put to use on other things.
- fader 15y ago
  I see the "dumbed down" complaint a lot, but I don't understand it. What is missing from Unity that you could do before? Or is it that if something is pretty or simple it is automatically worth less somehow than something ugly or complicated? For me Unity is far more powerful out of the box than GNOME 2 was. Being able to position and tile windows with the keyboard and having 10 applications easily and automatically bound to a keystroke are huge timesavers for me.
daliusd 15y ago
I consider myself power user. I am developer, I have experience with Windows, Mac OS X, BSD OSes and Linuxes. I have actually tried various desktop environments and WMs (including several tiling managers, I have used awesome WM for half a year). Overall I really love experimenting with software to the very deep level. I have tried Unity and I really like it. It is simple and it does what I need. It respects my screen estate without taking functionality and clarity. I really don't understand what other power users are missing. P.S. I don't like that Unity has some bugs but those are minor problems.
- ch0wn 15y ago
  Count me in. When developing, I usually have no more than three applications opened: GVim, a terminal window and a browser. All of them are easily accessible through Super + 1..3. In addition to that, I can move them around the screen using Ctrl+Alt+Numblock. These features work extremely reliable and fit very well in my workflow.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Well for one example: I use 2 large monitors to work with and run allot of applications at the same time. With gnome 2 I can put a seperate taskbar on each monitor and switch quickly between tasks with the keyboard or mouse. I also have another panel with buttons to launch my most common apps. Small amount of mouse movement and 1 click. With unity I have to drag the mouse right to the far left or my furthest left monitor , possibly scroll through the icons , select the app I want, click it and then I have to select the window I want. Lots of mouse movement and 2-3 clicks. Another problem I get is when launching a GUI app from a shell script , I load the app but then cannot dock it because it doesn't understand the relationship between the shell script and the app. This means I need seperate icons on my desktop to launch some apps.
  - daliusd 15y ago
    OK. I see how it can be problem with two monitors but aren't shortcuts like (Start+1) helping in this case? While I still see problem with eyes movement. Lastly I'm against idea using multiple monitors so I don't feel competent enough to comment. Problem with GUI apps from shell script is bug in my opinion but I was not affected by it yet.
gbog 15y ago
> The non geek will [...] love the gloss that Unity brings to Ubuntu. I don't know. It seems common sense that "non geeks" (hear, common people) like glossy things. After all, the Miss Universe thing has some success and is pure gloss. But I think it can also be an observation bias, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. For instance, we check what people like to watch on TV, but what the people are fed with on the TV is already the result of some presupposition over what they like. Some counter example exist, showing that people do not always like preformatted content, or glossy interface. Two different cases come to mind: In France, there was a movie called Etre et Avoir, about a teacher in a remote countryside village. No professional actors, no story, just some shots in a school. Who would have bet on it? Is it not obvious that spectators want action, glamour, movie stars? Well in this case it was not true: the movie has been widely successful. Another case, closer to HN interest: Is not Wikipedia the most successful (rich) content website ever? Who could say without laughing that Wikipedia has a glossy interface? So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks". They may or may not like Unity. If they do, it could be because it looks "glossy", yes, maybe, but it could also be because it just works, or because it is cheap, or because it is fast, or for some other reason.
- kmfrk 15y ago
  I also think that he is mistaking "gloss" with "UX that won't make you want to pull your hair out". Creating a good experience has more to do with creating some good interface metaphors that look good and work well than to just emulate known platforms like Windows and Mac.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Entirely agree, I think pherhaps when people describe apple products for example as "glossy" or "shiny" a large part of that is because they like the overall experience of the hardware + software but don't know enough Computer / UI jargon to describe exactly why they like it so they pick up on something concrete that they like such as colours and materials. It's like if you ask somebody why they find a woman attractive they are more likely to talk about her breasts , smile or legs rather than mentioning things like distance between the eyes, nose shape or cheekbone structure.
rbanffy 15y ago
I am a developer and I don't know what he's talking about. Sure Unity is a bit unpolished around the edges, but I barely use it. Most of the time of a developer is spent in shells and editors (and, occasionally, a browser). All I see of it is when I have to launch something and, quite frankly, hitting the windows key and typing is much faster than menueing around. Of course 2012 won't be the year of the Linux desktop and he nails it when he says we really don't want it. Give me power and stability. Give me power-user-friendliness, not grandma-friendliness.
guard-of-terra 15y ago
There is no indication whatsoever that Ubuntu will be able to reach "average joe", and building a product for audience you can't reach is pretty pointless. The only audience really using Ubuntu is one consisting of coders and geeks. There's a famous russian chinese saying: When a rhino stares at the moon - he is wasting his spleen flowers.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  I agree, if they had taken advantage of the fact that their competitors are spending lots of resources on simpler OSs for tablets etc and concentrated on providing the best Power User experience out there and spent the time they spent on Unity building really useful software I think there would be more of a business model for them.
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    I can't contemplate how on earth they might reach tablets either. (Not ones hand-made for 125$, obviously, that one ran Windows anyway).
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      They have 3 options I think. 1) Get people to jailbreak their tablets and install it. Fair enough but it will be very niche and more of a novelty, will never reach critical mass to get useful commercial apps. Will probably get picked by Chinese manufacturers who will resell cheap tablets with Ubuntu re-themed to look as much like iOS as possible, probably called iBuntu or something. 2) Make deals with manufacturers and produce mass market tablets, they will have to compete head on with android and I'm not sure what their USP would be here. They would either need 100% android compatibility or would need to magic allot of app developers out of thin air. 3) Go exclusively for niche markets, for example selling to car manufacturers developing bespoke in-car entertainment systems. This would be a whole new business strategy for them and would basically remove the need for the "ubuntu project" as it exists today.
      - 15y ago
pg7 15y ago
I am a geek and I like Unity. It's like emacs of the world of UI's. The first modern GUI you don't need to use a mouse to work with it. I find it very productive.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  What do you use to work with it? I didn't try it for very long but I didn't find it especially conductive to keyboard use. Or are you referring to touchscreen usage? How many people are actually using multitouch with Ubuntu?
  - fader 15y ago
    http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboard-and-mouse-shortcuts http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboar... You can launch or switch to any of the first 10 applications on the launcher, resize/maximize/minimize a window, tile multiple windows, switch workspaces, or bring up the dash with a single keybinding for each. The only one of those I remember being able to do in GNOME 2 was switch workspaces.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      > resize/maximize/minimize a window, (http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html) Alt-spacebar Opens the Window Menu. etc etc.
      - fader 15y ago
        Alt-spacebar requires multiple keystrokes and does not allow easy tiling or snapping to corners/center.
arocks 15y ago
There are two reasons why an average person learns computers and uses a particular OS: * Even if it is not very intuitive, it is universally used (Windows) * Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS) Linux is currently, IMHO, in the middle. This brings up a lot of issues from an average Joe's perspective: some hardware configurations do not work perfectly (especially laptops), time spent in learning an interface cannot be applied in other environments (like office) and some tools are not intuitively named especially for a beginner (what is GIMP? Evolution?) Just to be clear, I use Linux everyday and as an advanced user I love the freedom it offers. For the latter reason, I don't prefer Unity. Now, when a beginner uses Unity, they will approach someone like me. But since I dislike the unorthodox UI, I might be able to help her. But I am sure a fellow Unity enthusiast would be more than willing to help. So my feelings are mixed and not as upbeat as the OP thinks.
- karterk 15y ago
  > Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS) I often hear people saying that the Mac is intuitive. Is there actually proper proof for this?
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    I'm not sure about intuitive (when I use OS X I still have to lookup on google how to do things) but it is more discoverable in my limited experience. There are just less buttons and menus than there are in Windows, Linux desktop sort of has this advantage too although often many of the things that would have been done with the extra buttons are done with the Terminal. Also OS X is generally allot more consistent in it's interface than Linux is.
    - technomancy 15y ago
      I think most of the time when people say "intuitive" they mean "discoverable". I'm not even sure "intuitive" is a property software can possess.
      - 15y ago
andreadallera 15y ago
I've tried Unity and I didn't like it. But that was to be expected, since I've been using xmonad for more than a year now. Power users like myself will always find a way to get their favourite system up and running. I agree with Canonical and their policy of "fuck you, we're doing that no matter what you tell us", since their current user base is almost 100% power users and you can't really grow out of that niche if you don't take bold decisions. We will probably leave ubuntu because of it (I'm already on Arch Linux on most of my machines) but if they manage to attract a good slice of the market it will be a great thing for Linux as a whole. They probably shouldn't try to sell themselves as a "cheap mac", but that's another story.
cs702 15y ago
Despite the occasional glitches, I've come to like Unity a lot. Unity is invisible when I'm working. It shows up only when I invoke it with the <super> key. It uses screen real estate very efficiently. It lets me open my most often used apps with only two keystrokes (I've mapped <super><0> to <super><9> to my most used apps). It makes everything else quickly reachable with a few keystrokes via <super><a> and <super><f>. It lets me quickly divide screen real estate among windows with <Ctrl><Alt> and the numeric keypad. The next version (12.04) looks set to add many features specific to multi-display setups. It's great for people who want their desktop environment to get out of their way and prefer to use keyboard instead of mouse.
yummies 15y ago
So to sum this article up: 'unity is awesome and will finally let non geeks use linux, but any current linux users should move on to other distros.' despite how illogical that sounds, that may very well be cannonical's game plan.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  This is a pretty horrible plan, all the power users who helped report & fix bugs + answer questions on forums/wikis for ubuntu will move onto something else so canonical will be on their own for providing testing and support which will either slow down their release cycles allot (no bad thing). Or they will keep pushing buggy untested software straight into the hands of peoples grandmas.
Newky 15y ago
I really want to know how these "non-geeks" are going to get a chance to like Unity. I'm all for bringing Linux closer to people, and looking at the work that Android has done, it clarifies that with a correct marketing and technical drive, Linux' openness is something which can attract a large range of users. Worth noting that Android for all intents and purposes is fighting a closed, one-device (or at least one brand of device) Apple iOS. Commanding a place on desktops (not sure the relevance of this is still the same) will be arguably a different fight than on the mobile space. Windows runs on all hardware, its a familiar albeit crappy at times interface. What tells me most that Linux as a viable desktop for non-geeks is a fairytale never going to happen is the fact that right now, apart from a select group of pc vendors, the only way for anyone non-technical to get access to a ubuntu install is to install it themselves. It doesn't matter if its such a simple install, users are frightened to install a simple application at times. On this note, I always find it mystifying who all these non-geeks we are trying to appeal to are, I'm all for a slicker, easier to use desktop but why not target it at the market which have stood by and held up Linux for all these years.
supar 15y ago
I have experienced quite the opposite. A lot of colleagues that were once found of Ubuntu switched in flocks to other distros starting with Ubuntu Maverick. With Ubuntu 11, friends personally asked me how to switch back to the previous system, or to dump linux completely because the system got too slow with updates. And, sadly, that's true: the experience of the Ubuntu desktop, performance-wise, has degraded to the point of being significantly slower than windows xp or 7. I have witnessed netbooks (decent netbooks running either android or ubuntu with unity) considered as "crap" by several non-tecnical people talking in the building, simply because they don't work "as expected" and thus being almost unuseable by them. The way I see it, most people expect a standard windows-like interface. I've long stopped being a "go-to guy for computers" so I don't enter these discussions anymore, but that's very sad for me to realize that Ubuntu had everything two years ago for both technical users and new users, while now people simply flock away. Even at work, I'm seriously considering to dump Ubuntu LTS on servers due to the increasing (unfixed) issues we have on large systems, mostly due to Ubuntu changes compared to debian and/or ubuntu projects such as upstart. Bugs on launchpad (let alone the crappyness that is launchpad itself) don't get fixed, but are simply "waited for" from upstream (either debian or source author). I'm disappointed, really. Having the choice of the interface would have been so damn easy.
- technomancy 15y ago
  What makes you think you don't have a choice? I'm running Ubuntu with xmonad, and before that was on xfce; it's super easy to switch. I will probably switch to Debian soon, but that has more to do with Ubuntu pushing nonfree software than Unity.
  - supar 15y ago
    In theory yes, however alternative desktops are not supported. The choice of desktop is the primary difference between Ubuntu and (say) Debian which doesn't worship any. Not that "support" exists anyway, but there's no point in using Ubuntu if you use a different desktop. I also agree about your non-free software argument. Plus all the useless, additional services ubuntu is trying to push (Apple-style).
Atropos 15y ago
I'm probably a non-geek by HN standards, I primarily use my computer for internet, writing documents, media consumption etc... I have been using Ubuntu for 5 years or so and for my purposes it is "like windows, but better": (Practically) no viruses, no strange bugs, easy to reinstall/upgrade/backup. Personally I didn't like Unity and the changes at all and I didn't want to bother to learn / get used to it. Which of course is no problem, since Xubuntu works fine for me too. Where I don't agree with the author is the image of the "average joe". The characterization is possibly correct if you are talking about non-computer literate users ages 40+ or so. But in the age group <25 there are alot of non-geeks that go from InternetExplorer->Firefox/Chrome, MicrosoftOffice->OpenOffice without considering "gloss" at all.
asto 15y ago
Alienating current users (geeks) for prospective users (non-geeks) is always a bad move regardless of what the product is.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Very true, Apple does a fair job (mostly) in avoiding this and even Microsoft aren't terrible at it. There's just as many hardcore developers who love their macbooks as there are english lit students. The idea that you have to somehow have an apartheid for users is silly. If I trade an economical Toyota for a Ferrari the mission statement of the car may be very different but the basic interface (wheel + 3 pedals) is the same. Apart from knowing that the gas is going to be way more responsive on the ferrari you don't really need to re-learn driving just to switch.
technomancy 15y ago
This almost seems plausible until you realize that Gnome 3 has all the polish of Unity but none of the immediately obvious bugs. If they had simply contributed to Gnome 3 instead of breaking off into their own thing, the result would be far ahead of what they have now.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  I am not alone thinking Gnome 3 is not as comfortable to work with as Unity. Unity was born because Canonical wasn't happy with the directions Gnome was taking with 3, and, after using 3 for some time, I have to agree - lots of polish, true, but it's not as clean and direct as Unity. Unity has its bugs. In the end, they'll be dealt with. It's a 1.0 release, after all.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Jesus. A decent, level headed article, ended with the same fear mongering of every other article where the author doesn't like Unity. For some reason, if Ubuntu has Unity has the default launcher, you must choose a different distribution in order to use a different DE. Because a distro's DE is more important than it's package management, community, available random software, etc.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I think this am excellent point. Every time I've seen this brought up it turns into an argument over which features of Unity suck worst. So normal people have Ubuntu and Unity and the rest of us have a million other options. Hell, I even used Ununtu for development for a while. It was nice for a month but then the novelty wore off and Unity got in my way. But I hope more people realize that Ubuntu is not for you, it's for everyone (if everyone means you aren't a big power user). What's wrong with that?
jiggy2011 15y ago
The only constructive thing I take from this discussion is that on Linux everyone has a completely different way of working. Accommodating this requires either multiple WMs or ones which are very flexible. The problem with Unity is that it dilutes the work available for other window managers reducing the number of quality choices but it does not replace this with enough flexibility in itself.
wildmXranat 15y ago
Ugh, that is hype and nothing more. I've been using ubuntu since version 4 or so, and Unity has made me switch the windowing manager. Simple as that. It impedes my workflow and it doesn't even come close to what a simple, developer centric manager should be in my point of view. I installed the WM that comes with Lubuntu and unless Unity changes for the better, it will not be on my workstation. I can also say, that many developers I work with feel the same way. It wasn't as if we didn't try to get used to it.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  Unity isn't for developers.
- mst 15y ago
  And there's precisely the point: "it will not be on my workstation". Unity is aiming for the desktop market, not the workstation market. My desktop is Windows, because it allows me to consume media, browse the web, shove stuff onto my iPod with iTunes, and at no point do I actually have to think. My workstation is debian with fvwm2. Ubuntu is "linux for human beings", not "linux for development workstations". This is not necessarily a problem.
hamoid 15y ago
I think the only thing wrong with Unity is that it came without instructions. My dad, a non computer expert, updated to a recent Ubuntu and wondered where did all the menus go to. He called me saying that he needed help. Even I'm a power user, it also took me time to adapt. The first days I was trying to do things the old way. For example trying to find the applications by clicking instead of typing. After I realized, I think I'm now faster than before. I was already used to Quicksilver and Launchy, so pressing the start key, typing a few letters and pressing enter feels fast and easy. I was also annoyed by windows maximizing when I dragged them to the top. No one told me what was that about. Today I realized that I can easily drag windows to the left or right borders for having two windows side by side, which I find very useful. So I think what's missing is a welcome video tutorial that explains the changes and tells us how to be productive with Unity. I wonder about one thing though: aren't geeks doing most things with the keyboard? I don't think you notice Unity much if you stay away from the mouse.
molecule 15y ago
"I can no longer remember Ubuntu’s release names and numbers. I had to look it up for this article, apparently its at 11.10." YY.MM of release date.
cavilling_elite 15y ago
One of the things I think is keeping any desktop from being "the one" is the lack of true developer interoperability. You can program in gtk or qt (or many many others) but for a single distro your "best" programs span a number of different ways to do the same thing (and many flame wars). This is the greatest thing about Linux, and its curse. In Windows you have the Windows API, in OSx you have Cocoa. Sure you can add more to the mix but most of it is the main API. I enjoyed the direction gnome2 was going, slowly filling in the niches needed to create a complete system. Then it seems they scratched that and went with gnome3. I like a lot of things about gnome3, but I wish gnome2 would not be defunct. The same goes for kde, slowly building a complete system of tools for most users. Both gnome and kde are the reason people would choose gtk or qt for their development. What Unity needs (and I am not sure if it is in the works) is a true Unity API. Build apps for Unity with Unity specifics. Of course this goes against the Linux way, but if one really wants "the year of Linux on the desktop" we have to stop being a moving target.

70 points by kht786 15y ago

"As for Unity; its incomplete, buggy and complicated." -- four lines later: "The non geek will love Unity. Its simple to use [...]". The author fails to be consistent even in a single paragraph. Even the post's title contradicts its content.

sp332 15y ago
Note the present tense in the first quote and the future tense in the second. Unity will be a very user-friendly system once they fix more of the bugs.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  The problem is, by the time they have fixed the bugs and made it nice they will spot something else shiny and start again. So you'll get 2 or 3 nice stable releases before being baptized by fire again.
  - jeltz 15y ago
    Indeed, look at all the work canonical spent into speeding up boot and how it a couple of releases later regressed heavily almost back to where we started. Stories like this gives me little faith in Canonical managing to keep on improving Unity.

andyking 15y ago

It's been "the year of desktop Linux" every year since about 2006 for me. Who cares what everyone else is using? Just find a system you're happy with and stick with it.

dextorious 15y ago
"""Who cares what everyone else is using?""" A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster. The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?". Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"? We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using. We don't care what they are using. Any of your arguments as to why we should would apply equally well to cars, but you never see people have that conversation.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using.""" So, by you own logic, nobody cares to read what you and he are using, except you and him respectively. Which was kind of, my point. """We don't care what they are using. """ Good for you. This thread is about adoption, though, and about caring about what they are using --and specifically whether Unity is good for mass Linux adoption.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      "So, by you own logic" That is your logic, not my own. I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.
      - dextorious 15y ago
        """I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.""" So, you: (a) "care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to [your] own", but: (b) "[you] don't care what operating system he is using.". I fail to see how (a) can be conciliated with (b), given that he is writing about "what operating system he is using", that is the very thing that you "don't care about". It's not the only part where you defy logic and embrace contradiction... Responding to another comment you invoke the car analogy to invalidate my argument, but when someone confronts you you tell him that: "It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern." Are you not aware that we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the second case here, "Linux on the desktop"? Is there any special logic employed here?

jiggy2011 15y ago

Urgh, where to start? Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC. It's neither consistent with what their used to nor does it create any kind of superior paradigm to what already exists. Sure you can browse the web , play music and do the odd spreadsheet etc with it , big whoop we've been doing this for years , it would have been exciting in the late 90s not now. The barrier for Ubuntu is not really it's UI. It's problems like having a really horrible flash player, poor selection of applications for many tasks (not to mention games). Not to mention other nasties like pulseaudio,networkmanager,dependency problems etc. Ubuntu is so desperately trying to be a cut price apple, now they want to move to tablets.. Ok so they will have the same problem they have had on the desktop for the last 20 years, lack of consumer applications.

sixtofour 15y ago
"Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC." 'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going to use. Always. What a Linux desktop looks like and aspires to be and how well/whether it works means nothing in this context. Nothing. Numbers-wise, people using Linux on the desktop are: geeks (an insignificant percentage of PC users) and friends/parents of geeks (an insignificant percentage the former). We're like flies buzzing around a very small pile of elephant dung (but it's really good dung); meanwhile the elephant has lumbered off, out of site.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Not totally sure, yes there is always going to be a big advantage to whatever comes with the PC. I think if there was a clear sales pitch that could be used to sell Linux desktop as an alternative to Windows there would be enough people willing it try switching to give it critical mass which would then cause OEMs to ship it with some of their computers. Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc. Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make? It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?

jenhsun 15y ago

I already switch one of my production PC to Hackintosh due to Unity. I believe OP's just a propaganda anyway.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Maybe Unity isn't the best possible UI they could've made, but the strategy is definitely a good one. They need an UI that's as easy as possible to use if Linux will ever be destined for regular consumers. On the other hand, they might've done this too late. Android will probably be the popular solution on all devices and machines that could have been running it.

jjm 15y ago

I held off until couple days ago on installing 11 with Unity and was very frustrated... I didn't want to believe it, but it was way too dumbed down for me. I was almost insulted... If I want pretty GFX and UI I'll just use my mac. Yes, you can disable Unity... But the issue for me is a lot of man power will be spent on it. Manpower that could be put to use on other things.

fader 15y ago
I see the "dumbed down" complaint a lot, but I don't understand it. What is missing from Unity that you could do before? Or is it that if something is pretty or simple it is automatically worth less somehow than something ugly or complicated? For me Unity is far more powerful out of the box than GNOME 2 was. Being able to position and tile windows with the keyboard and having 10 applications easily and automatically bound to a keystroke are huge timesavers for me.

daliusd 15y ago

I consider myself power user. I am developer, I have experience with Windows, Mac OS X, BSD OSes and Linuxes. I have actually tried various desktop environments and WMs (including several tiling managers, I have used awesome WM for half a year). Overall I really love experimenting with software to the very deep level. I have tried Unity and I really like it. It is simple and it does what I need. It respects my screen estate without taking functionality and clarity. I really don't understand what other power users are missing. P.S. I don't like that Unity has some bugs but those are minor problems.

ch0wn 15y ago
Count me in. When developing, I usually have no more than three applications opened: GVim, a terminal window and a browser. All of them are easily accessible through Super + 1..3. In addition to that, I can move them around the screen using Ctrl+Alt+Numblock. These features work extremely reliable and fit very well in my workflow.
jiggy2011 15y ago
Well for one example: I use 2 large monitors to work with and run allot of applications at the same time. With gnome 2 I can put a seperate taskbar on each monitor and switch quickly between tasks with the keyboard or mouse. I also have another panel with buttons to launch my most common apps. Small amount of mouse movement and 1 click. With unity I have to drag the mouse right to the far left or my furthest left monitor , possibly scroll through the icons , select the app I want, click it and then I have to select the window I want. Lots of mouse movement and 2-3 clicks. Another problem I get is when launching a GUI app from a shell script , I load the app but then cannot dock it because it doesn't understand the relationship between the shell script and the app. This means I need seperate icons on my desktop to launch some apps.
- daliusd 15y ago
  OK. I see how it can be problem with two monitors but aren't shortcuts like (Start+1) helping in this case? While I still see problem with eyes movement. Lastly I'm against idea using multiple monitors so I don't feel competent enough to comment. Problem with GUI apps from shell script is bug in my opinion but I was not affected by it yet.

gbog 15y ago

> The non geek will [...] love the gloss that Unity brings to Ubuntu. I don't know. It seems common sense that "non geeks" (hear, common people) like glossy things. After all, the Miss Universe thing has some success and is pure gloss. But I think it can also be an observation bias, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. For instance, we check what people like to watch on TV, but what the people are fed with on the TV is already the result of some presupposition over what they like. Some counter example exist, showing that people do not always like preformatted content, or glossy interface. Two different cases come to mind: In France, there was a movie called Etre et Avoir, about a teacher in a remote countryside village. No professional actors, no story, just some shots in a school. Who would have bet on it? Is it not obvious that spectators want action, glamour, movie stars? Well in this case it was not true: the movie has been widely successful. Another case, closer to HN interest: Is not Wikipedia the most successful (rich) content website ever? Who could say without laughing that Wikipedia has a glossy interface? So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks". They may or may not like Unity. If they do, it could be because it looks "glossy", yes, maybe, but it could also be because it just works, or because it is cheap, or because it is fast, or for some other reason.

kmfrk 15y ago
I also think that he is mistaking "gloss" with "UX that won't make you want to pull your hair out". Creating a good experience has more to do with creating some good interface metaphors that look good and work well than to just emulate known platforms like Windows and Mac.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Entirely agree, I think pherhaps when people describe apple products for example as "glossy" or "shiny" a large part of that is because they like the overall experience of the hardware + software but don't know enough Computer / UI jargon to describe exactly why they like it so they pick up on something concrete that they like such as colours and materials. It's like if you ask somebody why they find a woman attractive they are more likely to talk about her breasts , smile or legs rather than mentioning things like distance between the eyes, nose shape or cheekbone structure.

rbanffy 15y ago

I am a developer and I don't know what he's talking about. Sure Unity is a bit unpolished around the edges, but I barely use it. Most of the time of a developer is spent in shells and editors (and, occasionally, a browser). All I see of it is when I have to launch something and, quite frankly, hitting the windows key and typing is much faster than menueing around. Of course 2012 won't be the year of the Linux desktop and he nails it when he says we really don't want it. Give me power and stability. Give me power-user-friendliness, not grandma-friendliness.

guard-of-terra 15y ago

There is no indication whatsoever that Ubuntu will be able to reach "average joe", and building a product for audience you can't reach is pretty pointless. The only audience really using Ubuntu is one consisting of coders and geeks. There's a famous russian chinese saying: When a rhino stares at the moon - he is wasting his spleen flowers.

jiggy2011 15y ago
I agree, if they had taken advantage of the fact that their competitors are spending lots of resources on simpler OSs for tablets etc and concentrated on providing the best Power User experience out there and spent the time they spent on Unity building really useful software I think there would be more of a business model for them.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  I can't contemplate how on earth they might reach tablets either. (Not ones hand-made for 125$, obviously, that one ran Windows anyway).
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    They have 3 options I think. 1) Get people to jailbreak their tablets and install it. Fair enough but it will be very niche and more of a novelty, will never reach critical mass to get useful commercial apps. Will probably get picked by Chinese manufacturers who will resell cheap tablets with Ubuntu re-themed to look as much like iOS as possible, probably called iBuntu or something. 2) Make deals with manufacturers and produce mass market tablets, they will have to compete head on with android and I'm not sure what their USP would be here. They would either need 100% android compatibility or would need to magic allot of app developers out of thin air. 3) Go exclusively for niche markets, for example selling to car manufacturers developing bespoke in-car entertainment systems. This would be a whole new business strategy for them and would basically remove the need for the "ubuntu project" as it exists today.
    - 15y ago

pg7 15y ago

I am a geek and I like Unity. It's like emacs of the world of UI's. The first modern GUI you don't need to use a mouse to work with it. I find it very productive.

jiggy2011 15y ago
What do you use to work with it? I didn't try it for very long but I didn't find it especially conductive to keyboard use. Or are you referring to touchscreen usage? How many people are actually using multitouch with Ubuntu?
- fader 15y ago
  http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboard-and-mouse-shortcuts http://askubuntu.com/questions/28086/what-are-unitys-keyboar... You can launch or switch to any of the first 10 applications on the launcher, resize/maximize/minimize a window, tile multiple windows, switch workspaces, or bring up the dash with a single keybinding for each. The only one of those I remember being able to do in GNOME 2 was switch workspaces.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > resize/maximize/minimize a window, (http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html http://k12linux.mesd.k12.or.us/docs/gnome/ch01s02.html) Alt-spacebar Opens the Window Menu. etc etc.
    - fader 15y ago
      Alt-spacebar requires multiple keystrokes and does not allow easy tiling or snapping to corners/center.

arocks 15y ago

There are two reasons why an average person learns computers and uses a particular OS: * Even if it is not very intuitive, it is universally used (Windows) * Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS) Linux is currently, IMHO, in the middle. This brings up a lot of issues from an average Joe's perspective: some hardware configurations do not work perfectly (especially laptops), time spent in learning an interface cannot be applied in other environments (like office) and some tools are not intuitively named especially for a beginner (what is GIMP? Evolution?) Just to be clear, I use Linux everyday and as an advanced user I love the freedom it offers. For the latter reason, I don't prefer Unity. Now, when a beginner uses Unity, they will approach someone like me. But since I dislike the unorthodox UI, I might be able to help her. But I am sure a fellow Unity enthusiast would be more than willing to help. So my feelings are mixed and not as upbeat as the OP thinks.

karterk 15y ago
> Even if it is not universally used, it is intuitive (Mac OS) I often hear people saying that the Mac is intuitive. Is there actually proper proof for this?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  I'm not sure about intuitive (when I use OS X I still have to lookup on google how to do things) but it is more discoverable in my limited experience. There are just less buttons and menus than there are in Windows, Linux desktop sort of has this advantage too although often many of the things that would have been done with the extra buttons are done with the Terminal. Also OS X is generally allot more consistent in it's interface than Linux is.
  - technomancy 15y ago
    I think most of the time when people say "intuitive" they mean "discoverable". I'm not even sure "intuitive" is a property software can possess.
    - 15y ago

andreadallera 15y ago

I've tried Unity and I didn't like it. But that was to be expected, since I've been using xmonad for more than a year now. Power users like myself will always find a way to get their favourite system up and running. I agree with Canonical and their policy of "fuck you, we're doing that no matter what you tell us", since their current user base is almost 100% power users and you can't really grow out of that niche if you don't take bold decisions. We will probably leave ubuntu because of it (I'm already on Arch Linux on most of my machines) but if they manage to attract a good slice of the market it will be a great thing for Linux as a whole. They probably shouldn't try to sell themselves as a "cheap mac", but that's another story.

cs702 15y ago

Despite the occasional glitches, I've come to like Unity a lot. Unity is invisible when I'm working. It shows up only when I invoke it with the <super> key. It uses screen real estate very efficiently. It lets me open my most often used apps with only two keystrokes (I've mapped <super><0> to <super><9> to my most used apps). It makes everything else quickly reachable with a few keystrokes via <super><a> and <super><f>. It lets me quickly divide screen real estate among windows with <Ctrl><Alt> and the numeric keypad. The next version (12.04) looks set to add many features specific to multi-display setups. It's great for people who want their desktop environment to get out of their way and prefer to use keyboard instead of mouse.

yummies 15y ago

So to sum this article up: 'unity is awesome and will finally let non geeks use linux, but any current linux users should move on to other distros.' despite how illogical that sounds, that may very well be cannonical's game plan.

jiggy2011 15y ago
This is a pretty horrible plan, all the power users who helped report & fix bugs + answer questions on forums/wikis for ubuntu will move onto something else so canonical will be on their own for providing testing and support which will either slow down their release cycles allot (no bad thing). Or they will keep pushing buggy untested software straight into the hands of peoples grandmas.

Newky 15y ago

I really want to know how these "non-geeks" are going to get a chance to like Unity. I'm all for bringing Linux closer to people, and looking at the work that Android has done, it clarifies that with a correct marketing and technical drive, Linux' openness is something which can attract a large range of users. Worth noting that Android for all intents and purposes is fighting a closed, one-device (or at least one brand of device) Apple iOS. Commanding a place on desktops (not sure the relevance of this is still the same) will be arguably a different fight than on the mobile space. Windows runs on all hardware, its a familiar albeit crappy at times interface. What tells me most that Linux as a viable desktop for non-geeks is a fairytale never going to happen is the fact that right now, apart from a select group of pc vendors, the only way for anyone non-technical to get access to a ubuntu install is to install it themselves. It doesn't matter if its such a simple install, users are frightened to install a simple application at times. On this note, I always find it mystifying who all these non-geeks we are trying to appeal to are, I'm all for a slicker, easier to use desktop but why not target it at the market which have stood by and held up Linux for all these years.

supar 15y ago

I have experienced quite the opposite. A lot of colleagues that were once found of Ubuntu switched in flocks to other distros starting with Ubuntu Maverick. With Ubuntu 11, friends personally asked me how to switch back to the previous system, or to dump linux completely because the system got too slow with updates. And, sadly, that's true: the experience of the Ubuntu desktop, performance-wise, has degraded to the point of being significantly slower than windows xp or 7. I have witnessed netbooks (decent netbooks running either android or ubuntu with unity) considered as "crap" by several non-tecnical people talking in the building, simply because they don't work "as expected" and thus being almost unuseable by them. The way I see it, most people expect a standard windows-like interface. I've long stopped being a "go-to guy for computers" so I don't enter these discussions anymore, but that's very sad for me to realize that Ubuntu had everything two years ago for both technical users and new users, while now people simply flock away. Even at work, I'm seriously considering to dump Ubuntu LTS on servers due to the increasing (unfixed) issues we have on large systems, mostly due to Ubuntu changes compared to debian and/or ubuntu projects such as upstart. Bugs on launchpad (let alone the crappyness that is launchpad itself) don't get fixed, but are simply "waited for" from upstream (either debian or source author). I'm disappointed, really. Having the choice of the interface would have been so damn easy.

technomancy 15y ago
What makes you think you don't have a choice? I'm running Ubuntu with xmonad, and before that was on xfce; it's super easy to switch. I will probably switch to Debian soon, but that has more to do with Ubuntu pushing nonfree software than Unity.
- supar 15y ago
  In theory yes, however alternative desktops are not supported. The choice of desktop is the primary difference between Ubuntu and (say) Debian which doesn't worship any. Not that "support" exists anyway, but there's no point in using Ubuntu if you use a different desktop. I also agree about your non-free software argument. Plus all the useless, additional services ubuntu is trying to push (Apple-style).

Atropos 15y ago

I'm probably a non-geek by HN standards, I primarily use my computer for internet, writing documents, media consumption etc... I have been using Ubuntu for 5 years or so and for my purposes it is "like windows, but better": (Practically) no viruses, no strange bugs, easy to reinstall/upgrade/backup. Personally I didn't like Unity and the changes at all and I didn't want to bother to learn / get used to it. Which of course is no problem, since Xubuntu works fine for me too. Where I don't agree with the author is the image of the "average joe". The characterization is possibly correct if you are talking about non-computer literate users ages 40+ or so. But in the age group <25 there are alot of non-geeks that go from InternetExplorer->Firefox/Chrome, MicrosoftOffice->OpenOffice without considering "gloss" at all.

asto 15y ago

Alienating current users (geeks) for prospective users (non-geeks) is always a bad move regardless of what the product is.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Very true, Apple does a fair job (mostly) in avoiding this and even Microsoft aren't terrible at it. There's just as many hardcore developers who love their macbooks as there are english lit students. The idea that you have to somehow have an apartheid for users is silly. If I trade an economical Toyota for a Ferrari the mission statement of the car may be very different but the basic interface (wheel + 3 pedals) is the same. Apart from knowing that the gas is going to be way more responsive on the ferrari you don't really need to re-learn driving just to switch.

technomancy 15y ago

This almost seems plausible until you realize that Gnome 3 has all the polish of Unity but none of the immediately obvious bugs. If they had simply contributed to Gnome 3 instead of breaking off into their own thing, the result would be far ahead of what they have now.

rbanffy 15y ago
I am not alone thinking Gnome 3 is not as comfortable to work with as Unity. Unity was born because Canonical wasn't happy with the directions Gnome was taking with 3, and, after using 3 for some time, I have to agree - lots of polish, true, but it's not as clean and direct as Unity. Unity has its bugs. In the end, they'll be dealt with. It's a 1.0 release, after all.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Jesus. A decent, level headed article, ended with the same fear mongering of every other article where the author doesn't like Unity. For some reason, if Ubuntu has Unity has the default launcher, you must choose a different distribution in order to use a different DE. Because a distro's DE is more important than it's package management, community, available random software, etc.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I think this am excellent point. Every time I've seen this brought up it turns into an argument over which features of Unity suck worst. So normal people have Ubuntu and Unity and the rest of us have a million other options. Hell, I even used Ununtu for development for a while. It was nice for a month but then the novelty wore off and Unity got in my way. But I hope more people realize that Ubuntu is not for you, it's for everyone (if everyone means you aren't a big power user). What's wrong with that?

jiggy2011 15y ago

The only constructive thing I take from this discussion is that on Linux everyone has a completely different way of working. Accommodating this requires either multiple WMs or ones which are very flexible. The problem with Unity is that it dilutes the work available for other window managers reducing the number of quality choices but it does not replace this with enough flexibility in itself.

wildmXranat 15y ago

Ugh, that is hype and nothing more. I've been using ubuntu since version 4 or so, and Unity has made me switch the windowing manager. Simple as that. It impedes my workflow and it doesn't even come close to what a simple, developer centric manager should be in my point of view. I installed the WM that comes with Lubuntu and unless Unity changes for the better, it will not be on my workstation. I can also say, that many developers I work with feel the same way. It wasn't as if we didn't try to get used to it.

gnaritas 15y ago
Unity isn't for developers.
mst 15y ago
And there's precisely the point: "it will not be on my workstation". Unity is aiming for the desktop market, not the workstation market. My desktop is Windows, because it allows me to consume media, browse the web, shove stuff onto my iPod with iTunes, and at no point do I actually have to think. My workstation is debian with fvwm2. Ubuntu is "linux for human beings", not "linux for development workstations". This is not necessarily a problem.

hamoid 15y ago

I think the only thing wrong with Unity is that it came without instructions. My dad, a non computer expert, updated to a recent Ubuntu and wondered where did all the menus go to. He called me saying that he needed help. Even I'm a power user, it also took me time to adapt. The first days I was trying to do things the old way. For example trying to find the applications by clicking instead of typing. After I realized, I think I'm now faster than before. I was already used to Quicksilver and Launchy, so pressing the start key, typing a few letters and pressing enter feels fast and easy. I was also annoyed by windows maximizing when I dragged them to the top. No one told me what was that about. Today I realized that I can easily drag windows to the left or right borders for having two windows side by side, which I find very useful. So I think what's missing is a welcome video tutorial that explains the changes and tells us how to be productive with Unity. I wonder about one thing though: aren't geeks doing most things with the keyboard? I don't think you notice Unity much if you stay away from the mouse.

molecule 15y ago

"I can no longer remember Ubuntu’s release names and numbers. I had to look it up for this article, apparently its at 11.10." YY.MM of release date.

cavilling_elite 15y ago

One of the things I think is keeping any desktop from being "the one" is the lack of true developer interoperability. You can program in gtk or qt (or many many others) but for a single distro your "best" programs span a number of different ways to do the same thing (and many flame wars). This is the greatest thing about Linux, and its curse. In Windows you have the Windows API, in OSx you have Cocoa. Sure you can add more to the mix but most of it is the main API. I enjoyed the direction gnome2 was going, slowly filling in the niches needed to create a complete system. Then it seems they scratched that and went with gnome3. I like a lot of things about gnome3, but I wish gnome2 would not be defunct. The same goes for kde, slowly building a complete system of tools for most users. Both gnome and kde are the reason people would choose gtk or qt for their development. What Unity needs (and I am not sure if it is in the works) is a true Unity API. Build apps for Unity with Unity specifics. Of course this goes against the Linux way, but if one really wants "the year of Linux on the desktop" we have to stop being a moving target.