5 ms·

I really wish Canonical would focus into making a really great desktop experience (that was getting better each year until 2011), instead of trying random shoot

by janus 15y ago

I really wish Canonical would focus into making a really great desktop experience (that was getting better each year until 2011), instead of trying random shoots everywhere and seeing what sticks.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
I don't like Unity (so far), but I can certainly see it as the glue that binds a broader strategy to capture a bigger share of emerging OS markets like tablets and smart TVs.
- janus 15y ago
  I do like Unity, but I find that it still needs a lot of polish. There are some bugs that make it unacceptable to use, IMO
- Iv 15y ago
  Then why not make a separate distribution ? Desktop linux users do not have the same needs as users of Android tablets. Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not.
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    >> Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not. Ubuntu's goal is the very oposite of that from the begining. Any coder and keyboard-user can easily pick between an array of distros that will target just them, while Ubuntu set out to be "Linux for human beings" and this is just the approach they chose.
  - trafficlight 15y ago
    That's the idea behind Mint. http://www.linuxmint.com/ http://www.linuxmint.com/
  - koenigdavidmj 15y ago
    What is keyboard-unfriendly about Unity that was not more keyboard-unfriendly about stock Gnome?
    - Iv 15y ago
      The inability to launch an application by typing its name. It was a real show stopper for me. In gnome, press Alt+F2 and you can run a command. In unity, even by calling the menu you can not execute a command, you have to guess the application's registered name, which can be quite different from the executable name.
      - fingerprinter 15y ago
        Uhm....ALT+F2 still exists. Try it, try it if you please. Try it try it, and you'll see.
        Symmetry 15y ago
        Even easier than that, just tap Super and you'll get the default lens, where you can launch applications just by typing its name and hitting enter. There's a tiny delay so I still prefer dmenu, but IMO much easier than having to take your hands off the home row to hit Alt-F2.
        wmwong 15y ago
        The thing I don't like about Super in Unity is that the feature doesn't learn you're most used applications. I used to use gnome-do and it was awesome for that. For instance, if you want to get to the calculator, I type calc. The first option is LibreOffice Calc. I have to either use the arrow keys or mouse to navigate to the calculator which is the second option. I know that If I type ca or cal, calculator is first, but I tend to type calc and it doesn't learn. I also use VirtualBox. In gnome-do, I can start typing the name of my VM and I can launch it immediately. Using Super in Unity, I need to open VirtualBox first. Then start the VM through VirtualBox.
        Iv 15y ago
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    > Then why not make a separate distribution? Opportunity cost. Canonical is a small company with limited resources. If they can achieve the holy grail of a common interface that works on the new emerging platforms, they can carve out a profitable market share. After all, the Year of Linux on the Desktop is a ship that has sailed.
  - cylinder714 15y ago
    There are versions of Ubuntu that use KDE (Kubuntu), XFCE (Xubuntu) and LXDE (Lubuntu).
- lwhi 15y ago
  I use unity every day and it allows me to carry out my daily work in a very acceptable manner. I don't miss Gnome desktop, which was basically a continuation of the UI format put in place by Win95. Unity isn't perfect, but the fact that Canonical are thinking long term and have an ambitious strategy should be commended.
gerggerg 15y ago
I guess the irony is lost in posting that on a website owned by ycombinator. The shoot every-where(with care) and see what sticks professionals.
vectorpush 15y ago
I think it's great that Canonical is expanding into new areas. The desktop is only one facet in the future of computing and if more users end up with an open source option instead of an Apple TV, I think it's a good thing.
possibilistic 15y ago
Canonical has to make money somehow. The Ubuntu "music store" sales probably don't net much (cf. Linux Mint earnings [1]); I don't think that Mr. Shuttleworth has an infinite cash reservoir to sink into Ubuntu, either. Canonical can and should try to monetize Ubuntu the best it can. Tablets, TVs, and other 'thinner' clients seem to be the market trend, and I think that Canonical could stand to make some money here. Even a little is good. It's possible to pursue a different form factor and still make a compelling desktop OS. If Canonical is able to grow, they can afford to spend more on building an across the board experience for all types of devices. Maybe they're slightly distracted from their original mission statement, and maybe this results in a slightly lessened desktop experience, but someone has to pay the bills. Maybe they'll even turn a profit. I'd certainly love to see them grow and flourish as a company. How awesome would it be to have Ubuntu-powered devices that run on optimized hardware and can sync, share, etc? [1] http://installubuntu.net/linux-mint-diverts-banshee-revenue/ http://installubuntu.net/linux-mint-diverts-banshee-revenue/ edit: Why the downvotes? I'd appreciate it if you let me know what I said wrong so that I can analyze and possibly correct.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  I'm not sure why you have quite so many downvotes. Where I disagree here is that I don't see what Canonical's business model will be on consumer devices. On the server/enterprise level it is easy, just charge for support services. If they provide a free open source solution for tablets for example , unless they are going to manufacture their own tablets they will not be getting any licensing money off the tablet manufacturers per tablet sold unless they distribute some of their software under a non-open license. They might be able to make some money through Ubuntu one and selling file syncing and sharing through that but if the system is open enough then there is nothing stopping a tablet manufacturer building a tablet that comes with their own syncing solution rather than Canonical's. They are unlikely to be able to strike good deals with major content providers without having to install DRM in their software and have signed software/hardware which would basically turn them into yet another proprietary vendor.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago

by janus 15y ago

I really wish Canonical would focus into making a really great desktop experience (that was getting better each year until 2011), instead of trying random shoots everywhere and seeing what sticks.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago

I don't like Unity (so far), but I can certainly see it as the glue that binds a broader strategy to capture a bigger share of emerging OS markets like tablets and smart TVs.

janus 15y ago
I do like Unity, but I find that it still needs a lot of polish. There are some bugs that make it unacceptable to use, IMO
Iv 15y ago
Then why not make a separate distribution ? Desktop linux users do not have the same needs as users of Android tablets. Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not.
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  >> Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not. Ubuntu's goal is the very oposite of that from the begining. Any coder and keyboard-user can easily pick between an array of distros that will target just them, while Ubuntu set out to be "Linux for human beings" and this is just the approach they chose.
- trafficlight 15y ago
  That's the idea behind Mint. http://www.linuxmint.com/ http://www.linuxmint.com/
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  What is keyboard-unfriendly about Unity that was not more keyboard-unfriendly about stock Gnome?
  - Iv 15y ago
    The inability to launch an application by typing its name. It was a real show stopper for me. In gnome, press Alt+F2 and you can run a command. In unity, even by calling the menu you can not execute a command, you have to guess the application's registered name, which can be quite different from the executable name.
    - fingerprinter 15y ago
      Uhm....ALT+F2 still exists. Try it, try it if you please. Try it try it, and you'll see.
      - Symmetry 15y ago
        Even easier than that, just tap Super and you'll get the default lens, where you can launch applications just by typing its name and hitting enter. There's a tiny delay so I still prefer dmenu, but IMO much easier than having to take your hands off the home row to hit Alt-F2.
        wmwong 15y ago
        The thing I don't like about Super in Unity is that the feature doesn't learn you're most used applications. I used to use gnome-do and it was awesome for that. For instance, if you want to get to the calculator, I type calc. The first option is LibreOffice Calc. I have to either use the arrow keys or mouse to navigate to the calculator which is the second option. I know that If I type ca or cal, calculator is first, but I tend to type calc and it doesn't learn. I also use VirtualBox. In gnome-do, I can start typing the name of my VM and I can launch it immediately. Using Super in Unity, I need to open VirtualBox first. Then start the VM through VirtualBox.
      - Iv 15y ago
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  > Then why not make a separate distribution? Opportunity cost. Canonical is a small company with limited resources. If they can achieve the holy grail of a common interface that works on the new emerging platforms, they can carve out a profitable market share. After all, the Year of Linux on the Desktop is a ship that has sailed.
- cylinder714 15y ago
  There are versions of Ubuntu that use KDE (Kubuntu), XFCE (Xubuntu) and LXDE (Lubuntu).
lwhi 15y ago
I use unity every day and it allows me to carry out my daily work in a very acceptable manner. I don't miss Gnome desktop, which was basically a continuation of the UI format put in place by Win95. Unity isn't perfect, but the fact that Canonical are thinking long term and have an ambitious strategy should be commended.

gerggerg 15y ago

I guess the irony is lost in posting that on a website owned by ycombinator. The shoot every-where(with care) and see what sticks professionals.

vectorpush 15y ago

I think it's great that Canonical is expanding into new areas. The desktop is only one facet in the future of computing and if more users end up with an open source option instead of an Apple TV, I think it's a good thing.

possibilistic 15y ago

Canonical has to make money somehow. The Ubuntu "music store" sales probably don't net much (cf. Linux Mint earnings [1]); I don't think that Mr. Shuttleworth has an infinite cash reservoir to sink into Ubuntu, either. Canonical can and should try to monetize Ubuntu the best it can. Tablets, TVs, and other 'thinner' clients seem to be the market trend, and I think that Canonical could stand to make some money here. Even a little is good. It's possible to pursue a different form factor and still make a compelling desktop OS. If Canonical is able to grow, they can afford to spend more on building an across the board experience for all types of devices. Maybe they're slightly distracted from their original mission statement, and maybe this results in a slightly lessened desktop experience, but someone has to pay the bills. Maybe they'll even turn a profit. I'd certainly love to see them grow and flourish as a company. How awesome would it be to have Ubuntu-powered devices that run on optimized hardware and can sync, share, etc? [1] http://installubuntu.net/linux-mint-diverts-banshee-revenue/ http://installubuntu.net/linux-mint-diverts-banshee-revenue/ edit: Why the downvotes? I'd appreciate it if you let me know what I said wrong so that I can analyze and possibly correct.

jiggy2011 15y ago
I'm not sure why you have quite so many downvotes. Where I disagree here is that I don't see what Canonical's business model will be on consumer devices. On the server/enterprise level it is easy, just charge for support services. If they provide a free open source solution for tablets for example , unless they are going to manufacture their own tablets they will not be getting any licensing money off the tablet manufacturers per tablet sold unless they distribute some of their software under a non-open license. They might be able to make some money through Ubuntu one and selling file syncing and sharing through that but if the system is open enough then there is nothing stopping a tablet manufacturer building a tablet that comes with their own syncing solution rather than Canonical's. They are unlikely to be able to strike good deals with major content providers without having to install DRM in their software and have signed software/hardware which would basically turn them into yet another proprietary vendor.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago