PDA

View Full Version : Why turning Ubuntu into a touchscreen tablet OS?



parkland
March 27th, 2012, 05:33 AM
I've been using ubuntu for awhile now... since 7.xx ish.
I do not understand why this is turning into a touchscreen tablet operating system?

The default current features and set up, seem like they should be an add-on rather than the integral function. I realise that things change and being an upbeat OS, decisions needed to be made to keep up to date, but where is it going now? :confused:
I know I could go download linux mint, install it on all our computers, but I was really hoping it wouldn't come down to that- but that's also not the point.
Ubuntu has evolved as a desktop OS, why the sudden push to make it act like a smart phone?

I realise there are issues that prevent using gnome 2, but is that it? all out of options? I am probably one of many people, who have used and promoted ubuntu for a long time, and now I am strongly considering jumping ship to another distro. I know it's no hair off anyones back, but still I feel confused as to why this move was done.

Why couldn't there have been a "tablet" version of ubuntu, leaving the main OS version as a normal desktop with familiar functionality and navigation?

I keep reading threads all over the internet about people whining about unity, and then there's always tricks and solutions to avoid unity : I tried most of them, and got nothing but weird issues.... seems like theres always just that one more thing to get right. And then I did updates, and unity repaired and re-installed itself. :confused: After me trying every command line to get the scrollbars the normal way, title bars the normal way, etc, etc....

I just feel like its a real pity, ubuntu was doing SOOOOO great, and so many people were so comfortable with it, then this radical change that was just to much for some people.
I can't understand why they didn't just keep improving the wonderful product they had, instead, they basically said "ah **** it, let's just go wild here and do whatever. Skies the limit boys!! Ya think we can shrink the install image enough to fit on an SD card for a tablet???"

And I do feel bad complaining about a product which costs me nothing, especially considering all the work that gets put into these works of art, but I just don't feel like these newer releases are going to appeal to as many users, myself included.

I really think the main goal within the community right now should be to get the desktop running in the previous manner, providing a sense of security and familiarity to the user. If I want a sidebar, I'll look around in the software downloads for one. If I want my menu's to run like a mac computer, I'll go read how to do it. Just make sure the default session is something useable and familiar, and stable.

The default ubuntu version should ALWAYS be the familiar desktop environment!!!!!!!!!

Not everyone has a touchscreen!!!!!!!):P

Version Dependency
March 27th, 2012, 06:06 AM
I know I could go download linux mint, install it on all our computers, but I was really hoping it wouldn't come down to that-

You won't find any desktop available on Mint or Fedora or any other distro that isn't available on Ubuntu. Nothing wrong with distro hopping...but it's probably not a good idea to distro hop expecting to find a new DE you like.


I realise there are issues that prevent using gnome 2, but is that it? all out of options?

You have plenty of options...in fact, you have MORE options now than you did previously. If you loved Gnome 2 and just can't live without, the next LTS (12.04) will have a Gnome Classic session available in the Software Center that is very much like the old Gnome 2 desktop experience. Read about it here (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/03/gnome-classic-in-ubuntu-12-04-its-like-nothing-ever-changed/). I recently tested it out on 12.04 and found it to work fantastic.

Other (probably less satisfactory solutions) include installing XFCE, MATE, or Cinnamon and seeing how you like those desktops. You could also install a Compiz standalone session (read about it here (http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/how-to-create-standalone-compiz-session.html)) but that's a bit more advanced. Heck, install 12.04 in a virtual machine and install all of the above and see how you like them.


I can't understand why they didn't just keep improving the wonderful product they had, instead, they basically said "ah **** it

The Gnome (http://www.gnome.org/) people ended Gnome 2...not Ubuntu. And there is no point in continuing to support a desktop that isn't developed or maintained.

parkland
March 27th, 2012, 06:12 AM
I may try just what you said.

However I still feel like so many people will be frustrated and not bother. Ultimately it is their loss, but it is just too bad.

There was a moment in time... when windows XP was really popular... that everyone was so familiar with that interface. It had the same basic layout, yet features for almost anything, and still today loved to death by many.

I feel like ubuntu was at that stage, right before unity.

click4851
March 27th, 2012, 07:26 AM
Dude...Simple, its that way cuz Mark wants it that way...no point in asking why.

Tamlynmac
March 27th, 2012, 09:30 AM
parkland

Your story is very similar to mine, I even started with 7.04. My family & I have been Ubuntu "only" since that time (3 desktops and numerous laptops - fluctuates). We also became frustrated with the new releases, finding them undesirable for our use. Like you, I've been a proponent of Ubuntu for quite some time. Convincing family, friends and associates to try it and then helping them to negotiate with the learning curve.

As a user, I appear to be in the minority as many others find the new releases totally acceptable. Which is primarily why I refuse to invest in bashing it. Instead, I've turned to Xubuntu and found that it's something we can live with. As a desktop/laptop OS, it fits our needs and is easily configurable. When support runs out for 10.04 in 2013, we will switch all our systems over to Xubuntu. Regardless of what we think, we're only a few users and obviously we don't represent the majority of present Ubuntu users.

Ubuntu has been our OS of choice for quite some time. Simply because we no longer find it acceptable, doesn't equate to impacting how it may be perceived by others. With all the available choices under the Canonical umbrella, I see no benefit in complaining with respect to the decisions of Canonical regarding Ubuntu's future. My only recommendation for those users who find the new Ubuntu releases lacking, is to investigate alternative distros and identify which one best meets their needs and expectations.

I've read it here for years - "Just Use What Works For You".
Good Luck

mastablasta
March 27th, 2012, 09:53 AM
There was a moment in time... when windows XP was really popular... that everyone was so familiar with that interface. It had the same basic layout, yet features for almost anything, and still today loved to death by many.


wait till windows 8 metro comes out then start talking about windows :-P

anyway as explained Gnome dropped gnome 2 and made gnome 3. since everyhitng was reworked anyway Ubuntu went on to design their Unity interface. The idea was that the interface would/could be the same wheather you used Ubuntu on a PC, Tablet, Phone or TV. and as i know they succeded in that. however the project just began and more improvements are to come that will make life easier for those that continue to use Gnome. I suspect thta in time we will also see more themes for gnome which are now as i understand quite limted in numbers. And i believe Unity keeps the Gnome "charm" in that it is very easy for beginners to understand. they might make it even easier in the future.

That said, ther ei snothing else in using any other interface you might like such as KDE (if you like windows style desktop) or XFCE (if you like old gnome look).

philinux
March 27th, 2012, 03:37 PM
I may try just what you said.

However I still feel like so many people will be frustrated and not bother. Ultimately it is their loss, but it is just too bad.

There was a moment in time... when windows XP was really popular... that everyone was so familiar with that interface. It had the same basic layout, yet features for almost anything, and still today loved to death by many.

I feel like ubuntu was at that stage, right before unity.

12.04 LTS is very different to previous 2 versions. Have a look at the. Changes sticky thread.

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=412

Witch Lady
March 27th, 2012, 04:02 PM
I may try just what you said.

However I still feel like so many people will be frustrated and not bother. Ultimately it is their loss, but it is just too bad.

There was a moment in time... when windows XP was really popular... that everyone was so familiar with that interface. It had the same basic layout, yet features for almost anything, and still today loved to death by many.

I feel like ubuntu was at that stage, right before unity.


The others may be used to Windows XP. I used it for some time at home, but rather Vista for few years. At work I use XP even tho more natural for me is Unity-like interface. I used Vista's run field as Unity dash. I like Unity very much, it is suitrd for my work style. I prefer Unity over Windows 7 both of them I have now at home. Unity is still more to my liking.

I tried old Fedora (like 13) and I was discontent with the Windows-like ui. I didn't like that much Ubuntu before Unity (used from 9.10). Why to install another os if you expect the experience to be almost like the one in Windows?

parkland
March 27th, 2012, 05:18 PM
The idea was that the interface would/could be the same wheather you used Ubuntu on a PC, Tablet, Phone or TV. and as i know they succeded in that.


Regrdless of how successful that idea is, would it not be yet more effective so stick to the desktop style OS for the main release?

parkland
March 27th, 2012, 05:21 PM
anyway as explained Gnome dropped gnome 2 and made gnome 3. since everyhitng was reworked anyway Ubuntu went on to design their Unity interface. .


I get that, I just think they should have kept running with gnome 2 then until a suitable similar replacement was tested and used, instead of running with the latest and greatest, despite what current users were used to or wanted.

parkland
March 27th, 2012, 05:25 PM
12.04 LTS is very different to previous 2 versions. Have a look at the. Changes sticky thread.

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=412


I know, I've been doing a touch of reading,

Hopefully things start shaping up better, but I still don't get the previous release unity "debacle"

Maybe it's thhe short release cycles that are making issues like this so bad? If there wasn't such a short release cycle, you could wait out the storm instead of having to make things work in a time period that really has no reason other than "because" .

:confused:

Bucky Ball
March 27th, 2012, 05:44 PM
Maybe it's thhe short release cycles that are making issues like this so bad? If there wasn't such a short release cycle, you could wait out the storm instead of having to make things work in a time period that really has no reason other than "because" .

:confused:

LTS releases are three years and that is fine by me (no storms here for the last couple of years). As of 12.04 LTS the desktop version is going to be five years support which has been reserved for servers in the past.

My suggestion? Install 12.04 LTS when it's stable (or upgrade from 10.04 in 2013 via update manager), install xfce4 immediately, log out, change the default DE to Xfce Session and log in.

But I love xfce! ;)

Handssolow
March 27th, 2012, 10:17 PM
Dude...Simple, its that way cuz Mark wants it that way...no point in asking why.

Wonderful comments, short and full of insight.

rmil
March 27th, 2012, 10:33 PM
The solution is just very simple Ubuntu guys should make things more adjustable. Means that user should be able to customize surrounding in the way he likes.

For example even you are using Unity you should be able to easy put Application button in the middle of the screen if you like that.

lykwydchykyn
March 27th, 2012, 10:49 PM
Canonical is a business, and most likely they have business goals and strategies that involve Unity desktop being what it is. Mark already said at some point a few months back that post-12.04 they are focusing on mobile, and there's been stuff out about ubuntu televisions and whatnot.

That's pretty much the answer.

QIII
March 27th, 2012, 11:03 PM
The solution is just very simple Ubuntu guys should make things more adjustable. Means that user should be able to customize surrounding in the way he likes.

For example even you are using Unity you should be able to easy put Application button in the middle of the screen if you like that.

High customization is probably not going to be compatible with pads for a few more generations of the technology. The child will need to grow before you can converse about adult things with it.

Dreamer Fithp Apprentice
March 28th, 2012, 12:35 AM
Me too, OP, me too. Post Maverick Ubuntu pretty much sucks on a desktop, as far as I'm concerned. I no longer recommend it to friends and even go out of my way to retract my previous recommendation to people I've suggested it to in the past. I've tried all the approaches mentioned in this thread and a few more. So far, for me, the best has been Mate, mainly because adjusting all the scripts I had put so much time into with Mate was fairly easy, whereas with Gnome Classic or any other non-Mate solution I pretty much had to throw them out and start over.

As for why Canonical went this way, I can only assume they thought they'd make more money this way. Maybe tablets and smart phones, now mostly android powered, are outselling desktop systems now, at least among new users. If so I can see the attitude of sacrifice anything to grab those new users and get them used to YOUR operating system. Many users remain insanely loyal to whatever they start out with. That is pretty much how MS DOS became the market leader in days of yore and how Windows got to where it is today. To us it does seem about like Coca Cola getting out of the soft drink business and deciding to use the trade mark for a new hair tonic. But perhaps we are vastly outnumbered by hordes of ignorant people whose first contact with IT is a phone or tablet. In which case the decision might make business sense.

I used to be fond of a software suite called Zen. I still think it had one of the cleverest pre-mouse UIs ever developed. But the company that developed it abandoned it entirely and started writing games instead. Stuff happens. So far, what I've had the best luck with is Mate, but I still have a way to go before I can say I like it as much as I do my Maverick installation. I've decided I'll stick it out until the next LTS comes out and I have time to give that a try both with Gnome Classic or whatever is the most retro DE they have and with Mate. If it isn't significantly better, I'm moving on, probably to PC-BSD. It was a good while it lasted but so was Zen. These things happen.

QIII
March 28th, 2012, 01:51 AM
For some of us older types, who have been involved in this IT world longer than some others have been alive, the new things hold enough appeal that we use them. We are often wise enough to avoid being left behind.

click4851
March 28th, 2012, 03:41 AM
Has Canonical actually turned a profit? What is the term for a business that fails to make a profit..... isn't it hobby? Just saying...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software

http://news.cnet.com/Canonical-seeks-profit-from-free-Ubuntu/2100-7344_3-6123249.html

Version Dependency
March 28th, 2012, 04:07 AM
Has Canonical actually turned a profit? What is the term for a business that fails to make a profit..... isn't it hobby? Just saying...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software

http://news.cnet.com/Canonical-seeks-profit-from-free-Ubuntu/2100-7344_3-6123249.html

Inflammatory posts in this thread. Judging by your post history, you like to post alot of Ubuntu hate. I'm going to assume that you don't even run Ubuntu (let me guess...Mint?...or maybe Fedora?) . Why do you spend so much time posting about all the things you hate about a product you don't use? It's not productive...and probably not healthy either.

What is the term for someone that fits the above description...isn't it troll?

uRock
March 28th, 2012, 04:18 AM
I have never felt like I was using a touch screen. I am thankful for the fresh new look, which is Unity.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 04:36 AM
For some of us older types, who have been involved in this IT world longer than some others have been alive, the new things hold enough appeal that we use them. We are often wise enough to avoid being left behind.


Unity and the new desktop are not necessarily bad, I just find it very surprising that such a radical change was forced on to users as the default option.

I think it would have been a lot more beneficial leave the desktop OS as familiar as possible, and if the tablet market is really a new business interest, why not create a fork, "Ubuntu tablet remix" ?

I mean, constructing an OS build for a particular style of device makes a lot more sense than trying to make it fit every processor platform. They are all different devices, so there will always be sacrifice if it is designed to run on everything with one OS.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 04:39 AM
High customization is probably not going to be compatible with pads for a few more generations of the technology. The child will need to grow before you can converse about adult things with it.

Customizing everything requires strong compatibility. That is why I again say there should have been a tablet fork of the operating system.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 04:50 AM
I have never felt like I was using a touch screen. I am thankful for the fresh new look, which is Unity.

I am running unity now, and have been for a while.

The menu, while very functional, is in a form that would be better suited for a limited sized screen where navigating through items doesn't need to be done quickly.

There has obviously been a lot of effort to get it all running good, and I don't mean to insult that effort, but I do think that this would have been better off an option, rather than the default interface.
The manu system also, and left hand window buttons, cool, but would have been better as options than default.

Windows had the window controls very similar, from 3.1 right to vista, a touch different, but not much. Now picture people trying ubuntu, installing it, feeling very alien from windows, finally getting a decent handle on things, then everything changes dramatically. It just seems so unnecessary.

uRock
March 28th, 2012, 04:52 AM
Customizing everything requires strong compatibility. That is why I again say there should have been a tablet fork of the operating system.

What would they use for the desktop system? gnome2 is dead. GNOME3 isn't much less of a change from gnome2 as Unity is.

BertN45
March 28th, 2012, 04:59 AM
Stop crying over spilled milk. Get used to change, because the world is turning faster and faster. You have the choice; adapt or become a dinosaur.

I know I am 67 now and started my IT career with mainframes, went to mini computers and later to PCs. If I would have had the attitude of the Unity haters, I would have lost my job 35 years ago.

Mark my words in 5 years everybody will be using touch screens also with desktops. In my line of business, we already used touch screens in the 80-ties, because it was so much better/easier for the end user.

Last remark: If you support many ways of customizing the system, you will increase the number of potential bugs exponentially. So it is very wise to limit the number of customising options, especially for a new desktop.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 05:09 AM
What would they use for the desktop system? gnome2 is dead. GNOME3 isn't much less of a change from gnome2 as Unity is.


It really seems like there is a lot of touch / tablet influence on the newer desktop's.

My honest opinion, if ubuntu was mine, I would have stuck with gnome2 for the desktop version. While this plan wouldn't last forever, at least it would buy some time to really decide how to properly move forward.

I'm not smart enough to know the entire inner workings of ubuntu and unity, maybe future versions will have better options for familiar navigation features.

malspa
March 28th, 2012, 05:13 AM
I have never felt like I was using a touch screen.

Me, either.

mc4man
March 28th, 2012, 05:17 AM
I am running unity now, and have been for a while.

The menu, while very functional, is in a form that would be better suited for a limited sized screen where navigating through items doesn't need to be done quickly.


It's sorta baffling to hear that & the topic of this thread for the last year or so. Unity blows the gnome2 menu system away & is far from being a "touchscreen tablet OS"

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 05:19 AM
Stop crying over spilled milk. Get used to change, because the world is turning faster and faster. You have the choice; adapt or become a dinosaur.

I know I am 67 now and started my IT career with mainframes, went to mini computers and later to PCs. If I would have had the attitude of the Unity haters, I would have lost my job 35 years ago.

Mark my words in 5 years everybody will be using touch screens also with desktops. In my line of business, we already used touch screens in the 80-ties, because it was so much better/easier for the user.


Ther is arguably a big difference between not wanting to upgrade and learn a little, and being handed a tool less than ideal for the job.

I think touch screen computers will be more popular, but I think desktop systems will never get to cozy with touchscreens. The keyboard and mouse are way to easy to use to bother mucking around touching a monitor, while sitting at a desk.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 05:32 AM
It's sorta baffling to hear that & the topic of this thread for the last year or so. Unity blows the gnome2 menu system away & is far from being a "touchscreen tablet OS"


I might not be "in the know", but I'd say for the amount of feedback regarding unity, it might have been better as the 2nd option.

A lot of guys don't barely know what they're talking about when they complain about it, and these are the guys that most likely are jumping ship or downgrading. Why not set the desktop up familiar and simple, by default, and let the guru's and enthusiests tinker in the command line to get menus to show up globally and sidebars to display icons in unfamiliar ways.

I've spent a lot of time, trying to be open and not turning into a "hater", and I have also been very patient with unity.

Before just saying "go with it, it's the only option", please realise it is not. Ubuntu has grown a reputation over the last few years, that has changed a lot over the recent releases. Ubuntu is the only linux ever, that I had installed on computers and sold, and installed on peoples computer. It has remained stable, consistent, and familiar. I understand that change is inevitable, but things could have easily changed slightly different.

cariboo
March 28th, 2012, 05:35 AM
Ther is arguably a big difference between not wanting to upgrade and learn a little, and being handed a tool less than ideal for the job.

I think touch screen computers will be more popular, but I think desktop systems will never get to cozy with touchscreens. The keyboard and mouse are way to easy to use to bother mucking around touching a monitor, while sitting at a desk.

If you use Unity, how did you come up with the idea that is was primarily designed for a touch screen? There is nothing in the interface that even suggest that.

More than anything else, it means that you have to learn a different way of doing things, and in most cases people that have used Unity for more than a couple of weeks say that they can do taks just as fast if not faster than with the older two panel interface.

This change hasn't been forced on anyone all of a sudden. Unity has been in development since Maverick. I would think, that if you are posting on the forums, you are a computer enthusiast, and not just a consumer. As an enthusiast, it should be nothing for you to try other desktop environments, if Unity doesn't suit the way you work.

BertN45
March 28th, 2012, 05:44 AM
Ther is arguably a big difference between not wanting to upgrade and learn a little, and being handed a tool less than ideal for the job.
Do you have any arguments other then taste for the "tool not suitable for the job" And what is that job?


I think touch screen computers will be more popular, but I think desktop systems will never get to cozy with touchscreens. The keyboard and mouse are way to easy to use to bother mucking around touching a monitor, while sitting at a desk.
I would love to be able to touch the dash and its icons to start the programs on my desktop. It is within arm length. I can hardly wait for release 12.10 or 13.10 when the HUD is combined with speech recognition and I can talk to my computer.

Witch Lady
March 28th, 2012, 06:31 AM
It really seems like there is a lot of touch / tablet influence on the newer desktop's.

My honest opinion, if ubuntu was mine, I would have stuck with gnome2 for the desktop version. While this plan wouldn't last forever, at least it would buy some time to really decide how to properly move forward.

I'm not smart enough to know the entire inner workings of ubuntu and unity, maybe future versions will have better options for familiar navigation features.

No to familiarity. It's no Windows.


Me, either.

+1


Ther is arguably a big difference between not wanting to upgrade and learn a little, and being handed a tool less than ideal for the job.

I think touch screen computers will be more popular, but I think desktop systems will never get to cozy with touchscreens. The keyboard and mouse are way to easy to use to bother mucking around touching a monitor, while sitting at a desk.

I can't imagine playing my fav MMOs with touch screen on desktop. No way. Desk is desk, I won't reach throguh the desk to get done anything. I'm using smartphone now, so I'm not against touch screens.


I might not be "in the know", but I'd say for the amount of feedback regarding unity, it might have been better as the 2nd option.

A lot of guys don't barely know what they're talking about when they complain about it, and these are the guys that most likely are jumping ship or downgrading. Why not set the desktop up familiar and simple, by default, and let the guru's and enthusiests tinker in the command line to get menus to show up globally and sidebars to display icons in unfamiliar ways.

I've spent a lot of time, trying to be open and not turning into a "hater", and I have also been very patient with unity.

Before just saying "go with it, it's the only option", please realise it is not. Ubuntu has grown a reputation over the last few years, that has changed a lot over the recent releases. Ubuntu is the only linux ever, that I had installed on computers and sold, and installed on peoples computer. It has remained stable, consistent, and familiar. I understand that change is inevitable, but things could have easily changed slightly different.

Linux and Ubuntu as well aren't free Windows alternatives. It's completely different system, which gets things done differently. Windows-like interface might be misleading. Unity shows the difference. You are using DIFFERENT system. Unity has some shortcomings but overall I'm more productive on it than on any Windows including 7. Finally some OS works the way that I'd like to use computer. And I'm happy that I got that by default. I wouldn't like to play with bash to get that.
Of course Ubuntu has some shortcomings as well. Overall I like Ubuntu even more after they put Unity default.

mastablasta
March 28th, 2012, 08:35 AM
I can't imagine playing my fav MMOs with touch screen on desktop. No way. Desk is desk, I won't reach throguh the desk to get done anything. I'm using smartphone now, so I'm not against touch screens.


i can, if the whole table is one touch screen, a holographics 3D interface or if i can use kinnect. many of these things already have some prototypes but are not close yet to be mainstream.

for example there was a showcase for (possibly to be turned DLC?) for Skyrim where you would (using kinekt) give voice commands for spells. if hardware&software is improved and programme interfaces changed i can imagine this totally. perhaps doing it all without touching anything and in 3D.

imagine you can give voice command, dictation instead of typing, or simple gestures when working/browsing.

QIII
March 28th, 2012, 01:36 PM
My honest opinion, if ubuntu was mine, I would have stuck with gnome2 for the desktop version. While this plan wouldn't last forever, at least it would buy some time to really decide how to properly move forward.

Personally, I'd have dumped Gnome2 as soon as its developers did.

Oh, wait, I think Canonical did that.

QIII
March 28th, 2012, 01:46 PM
For all of you less than about 50:

Before you die, you will all look back at this and laugh at yourselves. You will be using fantastically powerful computers with direct neural interfaces. Those computers may well be implanted. Maybe I'll get to see it.

I'm not laughing. I'm a futurist.

This, of course, is predicated on a bright future where we have not found a way to utterly destroy ourselves either with the machines themselves or the things we find out how to do by consulting them.

Skynet? Perhaps. Good old fashioned war made monstrously efficient? More likely.

rk0r
March 28th, 2012, 01:56 PM
Without change there would be no progression.


Maybe the familiarity of the " windows" based platform is something that Unity is trying to get away from. New users are adapting to unity and testing.. things will only get better.

Just think of it as evolution.

parkland
March 28th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Without change there would be no progression.


Maybe the familiarity of the " windows" based platform is something that Unity is trying to get away from. New users are adapting to unity and testing.. things will only get better.

Just think of it as evolution.

Since I've had ubuntu, I've always had the menu bar on top, window list bar on the bottom, and I was used to it.

It has been a LONG time now, and I'm still not used to unity. It is very frustraing.

spcwingo
March 28th, 2012, 08:36 PM
The Gnome (http://www.gnome.org/) people ended Gnome 2...not Ubuntu. And there is no point in continuing to support a desktop that isn't developed or maintained.

Gnome 2 desktop is being developed and maintained...just not as "Gnome". Have a look-see here:

http://mate-desktop.org/

parkland
March 29th, 2012, 04:19 AM
If you use Unity, how did you come up with the idea that is was primarily designed for a touch screen? There is nothing in the interface that even suggest that.
.


I am very open to discussing this, and also very open to trying to experience unity without influenced judgment, but you must be joking.

Hmmmm icons are 100x the size of the mouse pointer.... menu's are more arranged for a 7" monitor than a 19" monitor? ...... I could go on.

uRock
March 29th, 2012, 04:26 AM
It wasn't designed for touchscreen. I like the large icons, it makes searching for pictures, videos and other files much easier.

parkland
March 29th, 2012, 04:26 AM
I am very open to discussing this, and also very open to trying to experience unity without influenced judgment, but you must be joking.

Hmmmm icons are 100x the size of the mouse pointer.... menu's are more arranged for a 7" monitor than a 19" monitor? ...... I could go on.



And also, the sidebar uses the autohide feature. A while back there was some information available from a user survey, that was from windows users that used the autohide feature of the taskbar. It was like 8.x% that used autohide, and most that were asked found autohide annoying and out of place. Why would anyone put an autohide bar on the desktop by default, and on the left side?

What did ubuntu want to prove ???!?!?!

I don't know if you guys know, but there is a LOT of users from here, that have gone to other disto's. So don't just talk like everything is perfect and all high and mighty. If thing's don't change, more will leave, I guarantee that.

Edited to say: Ubuntu was an awesome desktop operating system, and may be a good tablet OS. I say pick which road you want to go, and let everyone know so we can quit following a project that is gonna keep disappointing us.

cariboo
March 29th, 2012, 04:40 AM
@parkland, could you provide us with a link to where you got your figures from?

Artificial Intelligence
March 29th, 2012, 04:49 AM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussion as it turns into a debate.

parkland
March 29th, 2012, 06:01 AM
@parkland, could you provide us with a link to where you got your figures from?

Inn all honesty I do remember it being about 1.5 - 2 years ago reading this, but in all seriousness I am fairly certain I remember that clearly .

craig10x
March 29th, 2012, 06:29 AM
parkland...while you are complaining about how horrible unity is....i will bet that you didn't spend a few weeks actually using it with a positive attitude...and an open mind...because if you have/would you might change your opinion...

i have mentioned this in several threads and hate to be redundant, but like you, after hearing a number of negative comments (along the line of yours) i tried unity and didn't think i would like it...

then i came back to try it again (about 2 weeks later) with positive attitude and open mind and guess what? after 2 weeks of using i began to really like it a LOT....installed Ubuntu 11.10 and have been using it Unity exclusively for about 2 months or so and now absolutely LOVE it...

just because something is different doesn't mean it is bad...problem is, many people resist CHANGE...if it's different then what they are accustomed to, they automatically don't like it...

also...you should keep in mind that a LOT of people DO like Unity A LOT....

kurt18947
March 29th, 2012, 07:16 AM
Since I've had ubuntu, I've always had the menu bar on top, window list bar on the bottom, and I was used to it.

It has been a LONG time now, and I'm still not used to unity. It is very frustraing.

I'm using Gnome Shell. I have 'Applications' & 'Places' on the top, and a apps/windows list and task switching bar on the bottom. There are at least 2 add-ons to accomplish each. The Gnome-shell extensions framework is a useful thing, though it's hit & miss right now in Precise due to rapid version changes. What is harder to replace IMO is the 'system' entry. I did find a way to get the old-style printer admin app back on Gnome-shell.

parkland
March 29th, 2012, 07:28 AM
....installed Ubuntu 11.10 and have been using it Unity exclusively for about 2 months or so and now absolutely LOVE it...


also...you should keep in mind that a LOT of people DO like Unity A LOT....


I can say I honestly have used it on my main computer for a long time now, it just does not feel right, ever. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, in not understanding it, but I have definately given it more than a fair chance.

A lot of people love it, but a lot of people hate it.

This was never supposed to be an "anti-unity" thread, but I did think I needed to make mmy voice heard about this issue, instead of being frustrated and never saying anything and jumping ship quietly.

kevinmchapman
March 29th, 2012, 12:23 PM
This was never supposed to be an "anti-unity" thread, but I did think I needed to make mmy voice heard about this issue, instead of being frustrated and never saying anything and jumping ship quietly.

Heard by whom, as a matter of interest, and why?

Docaltmed
March 29th, 2012, 12:33 PM
I use Gnome Shell on my two main computers, my employees are on 10.04 with Unity, and I'm testing 12.04 on a sacrificial computer.

My general preference has been for Gnome Shell, but with the latest updates, 12.04 Unity is looking *really* sweet. I'm going to enjoy using it.

It's long past time that 90's style nested-menu interfaces die. Once you start using the alternatives, old-school UIs just make me go "ewww."

lykwydchykyn
March 29th, 2012, 02:53 PM
Edited to say: Ubuntu was an awesome desktop operating system, and may be a good tablet OS. I say pick which road you want to go, and let everyone know so we can quit following a project that is gonna keep disappointing us.

I think the answer is already out there, but I don't think it's quite so black & white.

We already know:

- Canonical wants to exponentially increase it's user base
- It expects to do this from new, "casual" users
- Mobile is a growth area not quite dominated by a single player the way desktop is
- Mark Shuttleworth already said they'd be focusing on mobile after 12.04 was released -- see http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/820
- "Ubuntu TV" is already in the works
- One of the questions in the Ubuntu survey asked about interest in "several new products" which "ubuntu is planning to launch" -- which includes Ubuntu TV, Ubuntu on phones, and Ubuntu on tablets.

Is Ubuntu going to be *exclusively* a tablet/mobile/appliance OS? No, clearly not. But it should be obvious that they want to have a desktop which can easily make the jump between the desktop and these various devices without a complete overhaul and rebranding.

That may dilute its usability on the desktop, or it may enhance it. Obviously different people have different opinions. But you can be sure that no matter what direction Unity takes in the future it's going to be driven by tablet, mobile, and tv usage at least as much as it is by desktop usage.

mc4man
March 30th, 2012, 12:31 AM
From the release notes for 12.04 B2

Kubuntu

The Kubuntu team is proud to add "Kubuntu Active" as a tech preview, the first Ubuntu flavour designed for tablet devices.

TeamRocket1233c
March 30th, 2012, 12:50 AM
Stop crying over spilled milk. Get used to change, because the world is turning faster and faster. You have the choice; adapt or become a dinosaur.

I know I am 67 now and started my IT career with mainframes, went to mini computers and later to PCs. If I would have had the attitude of the Unity haters, I would have lost my job 35 years ago.

Mark my words in 5 years everybody will be using touch screens also with desktops. In my line of business, we already used touch screens in the 80-ties, because it was so much better/easier for the end user.

Last remark: If you support many ways of customizing the system, you will increase the number of potential bugs exponentially. So it is very wise to limit the number of customising options, especially for a new desktop.

Or a quicker and more blunt way to put it: Custom install, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, or get used to Unity. GNOME 2 is NOT coming back, and even Debian, RHEL, CentOS, Scientific, BSD, OpenIndiana, and Solaris will jump on the GNOME 3 bandwagon eventually.

Paqman
March 30th, 2012, 02:11 AM
I do not understand why this is turning into a touchscreen tablet operating system?


Unity isn't a touch interface. It's designed for mouse and keyboard, and in it's current form would not work very well at all as a touch interface.



After me trying every command line to get the scrollbars the normal way, title bars the normal way, etc, etc....


To remove the overlay scrollbars remove the package overlay-scrollbar, to remove the global menu, remove the package indicator-appmenu. You'll have to remove them again if you ever receive and update for ubuntu-desktop or unity that reinstalls them.

parkland
March 30th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Unity isn't a touch interface. It's designed for mouse and keyboard, and in it's current form would not work very well at all as a touch interface.



To remove the overlay scrollbars remove the package overlay-scrollbar, to remove the global menu, remove the package indicator-appmenu. You'll have to remove them again if you ever receive and update for ubuntu-desktop or unity that reinstalls them.

I had everything set up, then it updated, now random weird things happen, like title bars and window borders disappearing altogether.

Unity on this computer, an my other one, seems buggy, which i suspect would probably be fixed soon, or maybe already. When you click on an application, you don't really know if it worked or not... theres no rotating cirlce thing, the button doesn't animate being pushed, you just click it and wait.

I can't open a home folder if one is already open.

Style wise, the unity sidebar doeesn't really match the rest of the operating system? It doesn't look like it would come pre-packaged with the OS at all. The style of the sidebar is nice, maybe everything else just neeeds a style upgrade.

I'm really trying here guys, and I will keep trying, but that doesn't mean this whole thing hasn't been a shocker.

TeamRocket1233c
March 30th, 2012, 12:32 PM
Unity looks a tad touch-oriented to me, just saying. Looks are deceiving though.

wolfen69
March 30th, 2012, 04:43 PM
Regrdless of how successful that idea is, would it not be yet more effective so stick to the desktop style OS for the main release?
Unity IS a desktop style user interface. If you don't like it, there is xfce, kde, and other windows-like interfaces. You have more choices now than before, isn't that good?

Did you know that a gnome 2-like DE is available? See gnome classic in 12.04, like nothing ever changed. (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/03/gnome-classic-in-ubuntu-12-04-its-like-nothing-ever-changed/)

Very easy to have what you had before.

wolfen69
March 30th, 2012, 04:47 PM
Unity looks a tad touch-oriented to me, just saying. Looks are deceiving though.
Yes, looks are deceiving. I personally have never seen a touch device that looks like unity. All they did was take the dock that was available for many years at the bottom of the screen and put it on the side. I don't see how that is like a touchscreen OS. A touchscreen OS is set up completely different.

Dragonbite
March 30th, 2012, 05:14 PM
I've been using ubuntu for awhile now... since 7.xx ish.
I do not understand why this is turning into a touchscreen tablet operating system?

Maybe because Windows, Gnome and Apple are all turning into "tablet-friendly" interface versions?


Why couldn't there have been a "tablet" version of ubuntu, leaving the main OS version as a normal desktop with familiar functionality and navigation?


This isn't all Ubuntu's fault, though. If Gnome was sticking with Gnome 2 and Ubuntu just decided to up and go into Unity for the blazes of it, that would be one thing.

If Ubuntu didn't come out with Unity, then it would have used Gnome-shell which has arguably just as many complaints, since they are a Gnome distribution.

So even if Ubuntu didn't go with Unity, there would still be complaints and controversy. The only difference is that they could redirect peoples anger to the Gnome project. On the other hand, if they stuck with Gnome then they would not be able to control so much of the desktop environment to tweak it based on users' feedback, or modify it so that it will work on an Android phone.


I keep reading threads all over the internet about people whining about unity, and then there's always tricks and solutions to avoid unity : I tried most of them, and got nothing but weird issues....

People are going to whine. I've learned to ignore them. There's always a complainer in every crowd.


I just feel like its a real pity, ubuntu was doing SOOOOO great, and so many people were so comfortable with it, then this radical change that was just to much for some people.
I can't understand why they didn't just keep improving the wonderful product they had, instead, they basically said "ah **** it, let's just go wild here and do whatever. Skies the limit boys!! Ya think we can shrink the install image enough to fit on an SD card for a tablet???"

Because the world isn't moving that way. Are they supposed to keep working on older, legacy and outdated code-base of Gnome 2 while the other distros, after enough fixing, tout their "new" and "modern" environment and how Ubuntu is stuck-in-the-past?


I really think the main goal within the community right now should be to get the desktop running in the previous manner, providing a sense of security and familiarity to the user. If I want a sidebar, I'll look around in the software downloads for one. If I want my menu's to run like a mac computer, I'll go read how to do it. Just make sure the default session is something useable and familiar, and stable.

Don't live in the past. There are alternatives.

I think Ubuntu did a smart thing going with Unity. Things were going to change no matter what they do so at least they are taking fate into their own hands rather than letting another project dictate how things will be.

I hear of people talking about improvements that are going into Unity, and means of customizing the system is growing. I see Ubuntu listening to their users and trying to help find the "happy medium".

Ubuntu is a good distro, and is working hard to make Unity work. In some ways it is better than Gnome-shell, in others it could be better. Sticking with Gnome 2 isn't the solution because it may not be flexible enough to handle the changing world. Tablets are on the rise, Internet and social networking has grown to such a degree I doubt the Gnome developers foresaw how things were going to change when they were convincing people that Gnome 2 was better than Gnome 1!

Unity, though, still seems more destkop friendly than what I have seen of Windows 8!

Artificial Intelligence
March 30th, 2012, 05:42 PM
+10000 to what Dragonbite said.
People will whine despite what Ubuntu do. If Ubuntu used Gnome Shell instead of Unity, we'll have a lot of complain about that.
If Ubuntu still used the old legacy Gnome, people would complain about not being up-to-date. If Ubuntu chooses the color X, people will complain they didn't chooses Y. Seriously, if Ubuntu farted to the west, people will complain it wasn't to the right.

Paqman
March 30th, 2012, 06:59 PM
When you click on an application, you don't really know if it worked or not... theres no rotating cirlce thing, the button doesn't animate being pushed, you just click it and wait.


The background of the icon on the dock should pulsate while it's opening.



I can't open a home folder if one is already open.


Middle click on the icon.

JohnRambuntu
March 30th, 2012, 07:31 PM
Many Ubuntu users love the old fashioned, simple, easy to use DE found on previous versions, let me tell you my story:

You may not believe that in this era there will be people that don't want to use a computer, such is the case of my mother, she was reluctant to use a computer for so looong, and it wasn't 'till installed 10.04 on a desktop i built for her (which previously had Windows 7 Ultimate and she hated!) that she actually started "using" it.

She is about 60, and it gives me a lot of satisfaction to see her now navigating the web, watching youtube, editing grandchildren pictures, downloading files from the web, etc, etc, etc.

I know many users will not like the new DE, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that every day computers have become more and more accessible for anyone, and Ubuntu has always been your "friendly entry to the Linux world", Canonical is committed to give users a better "user experience", good thing that all the savvy gods of computers know how to disable Unity.

Please don't get me wrong, as it is not my intention to offend anyone, but to acknowledge that in the world of computers one has to "evolve or die".

winh8r
March 30th, 2012, 07:43 PM
A lot of people love it, but a lot of people hate it.

This was never supposed to be an "anti-unity" thread, but I did think I needed to make mmy voice heard about this issue, instead of being frustrated and never saying anything and jumping ship quietly.

Exactly.

I was like you and just couldn't get along with Unity, and now.....I am over it . There are alternative desktop environments that work better for me and so I use them.

You will gain nothing by trying to convince anyone here that Unity is anything other than the best way forward for Ubuntu. Those who love it will continue to love it and those who don't, like me, will just have to find something else. And to be honest there are plenty of options open to you as regards desktop environments.

Canonical have a plan, they will stick to that plan and they will inevitably alienate a minority of users in the process.Just as any company will tread on someones toes when they are in pursuit of a goal, this is the way the world is in technology, you win some users and you lose some users.

Get a virtualbox setup going and install other flavours of Ubuntu and try out the alternatives, there will be one that suits you I'm sure. And leave Unity to those who hold it dear, it will not go away so it is best to move your focus to what works for you and makes your life easier.

parkland
March 30th, 2012, 07:56 PM
Is unity, in the future, possibly capable of being customised to mimic earlier desktop versions?

Why would it be so hard to offer a "classic desktop" version, to those who just can't seem to evolve at the rate ubuntu wants to?

Why can't there be an option when you're installing it, to choose desktops?

If unity isn't flexible enough to make it operate in classic mode, that seems like we're moving backwards altogether, not "evolving" ...

Artificial Intelligence
March 30th, 2012, 08:47 PM
There will be a "classic desktop" option in Ubuntu 12.04.

yetiman64
March 31st, 2012, 12:50 AM
Exactly.

I was like you and just couldn't get along with Unity, and now.....I am over it . There are alternative desktop environments that work better for me and so I use them.

You will gain nothing by trying to convince anyone here that Unity is anything other than the best way forward for Ubuntu. Those who love it will continue to love it and those who don't, like me, will just have to find something else. And to be honest there are plenty of options open to you as regards desktop environments.

Canonical have a plan, they will stick to that plan and they will inevitably alienate a minority of users in the process.Just as any company will tread on someones toes when they are in pursuit of a goal, this is the way the world is in technology, you win some users and you lose some users.

Get a virtualbox setup going and install other flavours of Ubuntu and try out the alternatives, there will be one that suits you I'm sure. And leave Unity to those who hold it dear, it will not go away so it is best to move your focus to what works for you and makes your life easier.
Good post, particularly the highlighted sections above, imo.

parkland
March 31st, 2012, 03:14 AM
There will be a "classic desktop" option in Ubuntu 12.04.

Will unity power that desktop?

Maybe it's possible that we don't yet know what unity is capable of, and have only seen the initial stages which were not accepted as widely as eventually it will become.

?

wolfen69
March 31st, 2012, 03:20 AM
Exactly.

I was like you and just couldn't get along with Unity, and now.....I am over it . There are alternative desktop environments that work better for me and so I use them.

You will gain nothing by trying to convince anyone here that Unity is anything other than the best way forward for Ubuntu. Those who love it will continue to love it and those who don't, like me, will just have to find something else. And to be honest there are plenty of options open to you as regards desktop environments.

Canonical have a plan, they will stick to that plan and they will inevitably alienate a minority of users in the process.Just as any company will tread on someones toes when they are in pursuit of a goal, this is the way the world is in technology, you win some users and you lose some users.

Get a virtualbox setup going and install other flavours of Ubuntu and try out the alternatives, there will be one that suits you I'm sure. And leave Unity to those who hold it dear, it will not go away so it is best to move your focus to what works for you and makes your life easier.
Very well put for someone who doesn't like Unity. Thank you. It's nice when people keep a level head. After all, there's something out there for all of us.

wolfen69
March 31st, 2012, 03:23 AM
Seriously, if Ubuntu farted to the west, people will complain it wasn't to the right.

Just don't be downwind ;)

uRock
March 31st, 2012, 03:26 AM
...Maybe it's possible that we don't yet know what unity is capable of.....

I do and I embrace it.

kurt18947
March 31st, 2012, 11:17 PM
Is unity, in the future, possibly capable of being customised to mimic earlier desktop versions?

Why would it be so hard to offer a "classic desktop" version, to those who just can't seem to evolve at the rate ubuntu wants to?

Why can't there be an option when you're installing it, to choose desktops?

If unity isn't flexible enough to make it operate in classic mode, that seems like we're moving backwards altogether, not "evolving" ...

As Artificial Intelligence says, classic desktop (and classic desktop-no effects) is available in 12.04. Unity is really just a compiz plugin AFAIK and can be removed or disabled. The question becomes what to replace it with. Once 12.04's gnome-shell extensions are functioning properly, It can easily be made to feel much like Gnome2. Then there is Linux Mint which includes MATE, Cinnamon and a customized Gnome-shell. Not to mention Xubuntu, Xfce-desktop, Lubuntu and LXDE desktop. There are many options. It's pretty straightforward to create a Mint 12 Live DVD or Live USB and try the various flavors. Lubuntu works very well on less powerful machines. These ALL have Ubuntu roots. Nobody is being forced to use Unity.

parkland
April 5th, 2012, 07:25 AM
As Artificial Intelligence says, classic desktop (and classic desktop-no effects) is available in 12.04. Unity is really just a compiz plugin AFAIK and can be removed or disabled. The question becomes what to replace it with. Once 12.04's gnome-shell extensions are functioning properly, It can easily be made to feel much like Gnome2. Then there is Linux Mint which includes MATE, Cinnamon and a customized Gnome-shell. Not to mention Xubuntu, Xfce-desktop, Lubuntu and LXDE desktop. There are many options. It's pretty straightforward to create a Mint 12 Live DVD or Live USB and try the various flavors. Lubuntu works very well on less powerful machines. These ALL have Ubuntu roots. Nobody is being forced to use Unity.

I'm trying various distro's right now, so far, 2 machines with kubuntu are running 100% cpu all the time , and ubuntu 12.whatever is completely unstable, and linux mint seems to be the next big forecommer of the desktop OS choice.
You can say anything you want, but ubuntu spent a lot of time being a desktop distro, and now it's just not usable on a desktop, OH WELL, THERES LOTS OF OTHER LINUX AVAILABLE.

TeamRocket1233c
April 5th, 2012, 03:13 PM
Yes, looks are deceiving. I personally have never seen a touch device that looks like unity. All they did was take the dock that was available for many years at the bottom of the screen and put it on the side. I don't see how that is like a touchscreen OS. A touchscreen OS is set up completely different.

Also, I like GNOME Shell, and I like the whole concept of Unity, but Xfce looks more GNOME 2-ish, and LXDE, more Windows-like, and they use far less resources than GNOME Shell or Unity, and I just prefer Openbox or Fluxbox over GNOME Shell, Unity, Xfce, and LXDE, TBH.

Openbox and Fluxbox use the least amount of resources possible while being fully functional, and they just look way cooler, especially Fluxbox.

craig10x
April 5th, 2012, 06:30 PM
parkland, 12.04 hasn't even been final released yet...it is still in beta...
that said, on my computer, 12.04 is running very stable, but again, it hasn't been released yet...try it AFTER it is released...

mint doesn't allow you to pre-test it until it releases a release candidate and then a final release (unless you are on their special "testing team")....
and from my experience, usually mint's release candidate is still full of bugs...many of which he finally does get "ironed out" by the final release (though not all)...

so you download ubuntu early and say it isn't stable enough for you?
pretty funny...no offense...;)

parkland
April 5th, 2012, 10:01 PM
parkland, 12.04 hasn't even been final released yet...it is still in beta...
that said, on my computer, 12.04 is running very stable, but again, it hasn't been released yet...try it AFTER it is released...

mint doesn't allow you to pre-test it until it releases a release candidate and then a final release (unless you are on their special "testing team")....
and from my experience, usually mint's release candidate is still full of bugs...many of which he finally does get "ironed out" by the final release (though not all)...

so you download ubuntu early and say it isn't stable enough for you?
pretty funny...no offense...;)


Well heck, i'm trying everything, doesn't my plan make better sense than trying older versions? I wouldn't have downloaded anything to begin with if there wasn't a need / want to begin with. :lolflag:

3rdalbum
April 6th, 2012, 04:25 AM
Why couldn't there have been a "tablet" version of ubuntu, leaving the main OS version as a normal desktop with familiar functionality and navigation?

a. The "normal" Gnome 2 desktop is incredibly old-fashioned. It has barely any more useful features than Mac OS 9.
b. Gnome 2 is no longer maintained by its developers. You can't ship obsolete and unmaintained software in an enterprise distro. You shouldn't even do it for a home user distro.


I just feel like its a real pity, ubuntu was doing SOOOOO great, and so many people were so comfortable with it, then this radical change that was just to much for some people.

People said the same thing about the Apple Mac. They said that Apple should have stuck with DOS 4.0 and the Apple 2 applications. They described the GUI as "a game" and "visually tiring".

Sure, it's comfortable to stay in the womb... but wouldn't you rather be a man than a fetus? For both baby and software, the teething trouble just leads to a better existence.

parkland
April 9th, 2012, 03:17 AM
a. The "normal" Gnome 2 desktop is incredibly old-fashioned. It has barely any more useful features than Mac OS 9.
b. Gnome 2 is no longer maintained by its developers. You can't ship obsolete and unmaintained software in an enterprise distro. You shouldn't even do it for a home user distro.



People said the same thing about the Apple Mac. They said that Apple should have stuck with DOS 4.0 and the Apple 2 applications. They described the GUI as "a game" and "visually tiring".

Sure, it's comfortable to stay in the womb... but wouldn't you rather be a man than a fetus? For both baby and software, the teething trouble just leads to a better existence.


Well not to veer completely off in a different direction, but it seems like these turbo fast releases are just not helping anything either. Ubuntu is great, and I've appreciated it; but it would be nice to see slower releases, and more stable and refined releases.

I remember when I upgraded to the version that installed the new ext4 filessystem... and lost literally hundreds of files off my hard drive. Then I searched and found that there are still bugs that cause massive filesystem corruption etc..... Why on earth would anyone release that when theres a serious bug like that? It would make sense to me, that instead of trying to keep up with other OS's performance, maybe get it working properly first.

It seems that although Unity is certainly usable, and by no means considered a bug, It seemed more important to rush it to the next release instead of refining little issues and common complaints out of it.

uRock
April 9th, 2012, 04:28 AM
I remember when I upgraded to the version that installed the new ext4 filessystem... and lost literally hundreds of files off my hard drive. Then I searched and found that there are still bugs that cause massive filesystem corruption etc..... Why on earth would anyone release that when theres a serious bug like that?
You blame ubuntu for deleting your files when you didn't read the release notes, nor back up your data? Where are these massive file system corruptions?

jjpcexpert
April 12th, 2012, 10:25 AM
You just can't have it your way without making it yourself. If you're prepared to spend the 2-10 hours experimenting with different things, you'll get there.

odinbaal
April 12th, 2012, 10:48 AM
After distro-hopping so many times and encountering problems "everywhere," I'm happy with 12.04 Unity, where everything works out-of-the-box.

What's wrong with the buttons? The misconception is that big buttons were put there for a touch screen. But don't we have buttons ("icons") in every OS (except command-line ones) anyway?

I can happily see the new buttons as icons, and instead of focusing on them as an invention for tablets/touch-screen gadgets, why not see them simply as icons? And I can resize them to as small as I want, no problem.

This is a storm in a teacup, really, and one should instead focus on the usability, stability, and updatedness which come with Ubuntu.

My two cents.

wolfen69
April 13th, 2012, 02:27 AM
You can say anything you want, but ubuntu spent a lot of time being a desktop distro, and now it's just not usable on a desktop, OH WELL, THERES LOTS OF OTHER LINUX AVAILABLE.

Can I ask who you are speaking for? Myself and many other people, as evidenced by the responses here, would indicate otherwise. I find it very usable and solid, once I got used to it.

If you can't use it, that's OK. (but it's probably more that you don't want to, not that you can't) But to make blanket assumptions would be wrong.

3rdalbum
April 15th, 2012, 05:07 PM
Well not to veer completely off in a different direction, but it seems like these turbo fast releases are just not helping anything either. Ubuntu is great, and I've appreciated it; but it would be nice to see slower releases, and more stable and refined releases.

I would agree, to an extent. It's great to have cutting-edge features and software, but the regressions are annoying and simply unprofessional. Something must be done before we can reach the next 100 million users.

However I know exactly what will happen if the release cycle just gets lengthened to 9 months, the last three months of that being bug-fixes only: The people who currently test Ubuntu and report bugs will continue doing that. The people who don't test Ubuntu development versions will still refuse to help test, and there will STILL be bugs and regressions on release day. These will not have been reported because none of the testers had the problem. Result: Slower release cycle, very little benefit.


I remember when I upgraded to the version that installed the new ext4 filessystem... and lost literally hundreds of files off my hard drive. Then I searched and found that there are still bugs that cause massive filesystem corruption etc..... Why on earth would anyone release that when theres a serious bug like that?

True, although I thought nobody in real life actually lost data from it. Thanks for correcting my misconception. Things seem better now, I was running 11.10 with Btfs without any data loss. Btfs is rather more experimental than Ext4 was.

Dragonbite
April 16th, 2012, 05:03 PM
Compared to Windows 8, Unity is looking more "desktop" like than Windows! It's like Unity started running down this path and here comes Microsoft barreling past Unity and disappearing ahead.

The question is, will Unity find Windows stuck on the side with a leg cramp, running down a path with the sign "Bridge Out" or will it continue competing with Unity?

Only time will really tell.

parkland
April 17th, 2012, 03:46 AM
True, although I thought nobody in real life actually lost data from it. Thanks for correcting my misconception. Things seem better now, I was running 11.10 with Btfs without any data loss. Btfs is rather more experimental than Ext4 was.


Completely destroyed and corrupted files in a way I'd never imagine.

I didn't have a clue this was an issue, until some of my movies wouldn't play, then noticed that instead of being 700 mb or so, some wer 10 gb, a bunch were 1.00 kb... once i started looking, a huge majority of files wre corrupted, not just media.

To say that I should of read release notes, or anything along that tune is crazy.

parkland
April 17th, 2012, 03:49 AM
Can I ask who you are speaking for? Myself and many other people, as evidenced by the responses here, would indicate otherwise. I find it very usable and solid, once I got used to it.

If you can't use it, that's OK. (but it's probably more that you don't want to, not that you can't) But to make blanket assumptions would be wrong.


Well everyone's different, maybe I've just run accross a huge oddity of people in the real world that can't stand the new interface. Apparently here in this forum, things look the other way around.

I can say I've enjoyed the transition from windows to ubuntu better than I've enjoyed from gnome2 to unity.

Even if I'm the minority, thats a pretty bold statement to make.

Dragonbite
April 17th, 2012, 02:46 PM
I can say I've enjoyed the transition from windows to ubuntu better than I've enjoyed from gnome2 to unity.

Even if I'm the minority, thats a pretty bold statement to make.

meh. :neutral:

So what would people be saying if Ubuntu decided to stay with Gnome and everybody would have Gnome-shell whether they would like it or not?

The difference is Ubuntu can try and do something about it (that is progressive, not regressive like making it look like Gnome 2) instead of letting the people at the Gnome project dictate things and ignore changes Ubuntu sets upstream.

Conspiracy theorists could say that Red Hat is trying to sabotage Gnome with Gnome-shell so Ubuntu (and other competitors) either look lousy or have to expend resources to "fix" the environment, reducing their ability to compete with Red Hat in the enterprise market which doesn't care so much about desktops.

Rastapop
April 18th, 2012, 04:42 AM
What would they use for the desktop system? gnome2 is dead. GNOME3 isn't much less of a change from gnome2 as Unity is.

MATE, Cinnamon....

I agree with the OP. Canonical aren't even trying to hide the fact anyway: Shuttleworth has publicly stated Ubuntu will try for tablets and phones, and it obviously wasn't up to that task in its old desktop-orientated format.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/102599-ubuntu-14-04-will-be-a-smartphone-and-tablet-os-so-what

I went over to Mint when Unity came in, but now that they too are using Gnome 3 I've gone to Xubuntu.
I don't see how anyone could keep a straight face while arguing that Unity (or Gnome 3) is optimised for desktops.

KiwiNZ
April 18th, 2012, 05:00 AM
Unity is fine, it works great on the desktop. The knockers will have to get used to it, the mobile/desktop unification is here and here to stay for the foreseeable future. I guess the knockers can stick with an OS from 2007

cariboo
April 18th, 2012, 05:04 AM
I'd suggest that anyone saying Unity is a tablet or smartphone interface haven't used either. I couldn't imagine using Unity on my Android as it just wouldn't work on such a small screen. As far as a tablet interface goes, Unity with it's icons on the left all the time, just would take up to much valuable screen space, and yes I'm aware of auto-hide, as I use it on my desktop, but every tablet I've played with so far has some sort of navigation buttons in most screens.

I expect to be buying an Eee-pad Transformer Prime in the next couple of weeks, so if it's possible, I will be trying Ubuntu on it. Stay tuned for further news. :)

lykwydchykyn
April 18th, 2012, 06:00 AM
I'd suggest that anyone saying Unity is a tablet or smartphone interface haven't used either. I couldn't imagine using Unity on my Android as it just wouldn't work on such a small screen. As far as a tablet interface goes, Unity with it's icons on the left all the time, just would take up to much valuable screen space, and yes I'm aware of auto-hide, as I use it on my desktop, but every tablet I've played with so far has some sort of navigation buttons in most screens.

I would agree that Unity is not a tablet interface, but it's design is clearly influenced and informed by mobile interfaces.

It's the stated intention of Canonical to focus on mobile after 12.04, and they've already mentioned plans for both phones and tablets running Ubuntu. If the interface they're going to use isn't Unity, then what will it be? If it is Unity (or some modified version of Unity), then why should it be unreasonable to interpret things like the dash or the launcher as tablet & phone influences in the interface, or to expect that it will continue to evolve along those lines?

The real question for me isn't whether or not Unity has mobile influences in its design, but whether this is actually a bad thing for a desktop UI or not.

Dragonbite
April 18th, 2012, 01:59 PM
The other aspect for Unity is consistancy of the interface across tablets, (the phone looks different, similar but different), dekstops/laptops, TV and the phone-docked-ubuntu whatever-you-call-it. So they are looking even further beyond just the desktop.

3rdalbum
April 19th, 2012, 04:14 AM
I don't see how anyone could keep a straight face while arguing that Unity (or Gnome 3) is optimised for desktops.

When scrolling a document one step at a time (for example, when reading a PDF), you just have to keep your pointer on the "down arrow" of the overlay scrollbox, and click whenever you want to scroll down a step.

To go back up, you just have to move the cursor less than an inch upwards and click.

Not that much use on a desktop, but very handy on a laptop with a touchpad.

Let's not forget the handy keyboard shortcuts for basically everything; even for finding items in menus.

Straight-faced here.

jwbrase
April 19th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Not that much use on a desktop, but very handy on a laptop with a touchpad.

That's a thought I was just having: Unity is more touchpad optimized than it is touchscreen optimized.

A lot of its (huge) feature regressions have to do with functionality with a real mouse. The inferiority of a touchpad covers them up (and, in a few cases, they help deal with that inferiority). So if you're masochistic enough to use a touchpad, you probably don't even notice them.

I, on the other hand, am the type of person who finds having a real mouse critical, even when portability concerns cause it to be a hassle. It's exceedingly rare that my laptop is booted without one plugged in. As I recently mentioned in another thread, my ideal laptop would forgo the trackpad for an extra USB port or two.

KiwiNZ
April 19th, 2012, 10:04 PM
Unity is good for Keyboard, mouse, track pad and touch screen. hmmmm kinda what the name implies.

zopen
April 19th, 2012, 10:12 PM
I would agree that Unity is not a tablet interface, but it's design is clearly influenced and informed by mobile interfaces.
It's the stated intention of Canonical to focus on mobile after 12.04, and they've already mentioned plans for both phones and tablets running Ubuntu. [...]
The real question for me isn't whether or not Unity has mobile influences in its design, but whether this is actually a bad thing for a desktop UI or not.

absolutely. I have post a possible reason in another closed thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1961448) . Regarding the purpose, it is very clear and a confirmation of the touchable devices:

"Introducing Overlay Scrollbars in Unity
Problem: Today's scrollbars are optimized for cursor driven UI but they became easily unnecessary and bulky on touchable and small screen devices. In those cases, optimization of the screen's real-estate becomes essential. "
* http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/...bars-in-unity/ (http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/introducing-overlay-scrollbars-in-unity/)


check how the keyboard computers are missed in the same definition of the new design purpose. Despite non-touchable machines are very present in the world, the new touchable devices are the real goal of these forced changes for the user. This is the next global step for home-technology and a lot of money.

Obviously, these interface changes are being introduced for many companies to causes an acceleration in the consumers to buy new products. They wish to try them (which is very understable) and they will leave the old devices because there is a poor or non-existent support.

However, we can buy a new touchscreen, a new holographic screen or even a new telepathic screen. And still we are wandering around internet to know the right drivers, or searching answers about the lack of standards, or writing "sudo e2fsck -cfpv /dev/sdb1" to repair a disk.

This is the real primitivism of the technology we have. This real situation should appear in the market disguised of modernity for the senses of the people, in order to accelerate their consumerism behaviour. To get a shorter life cycle for the products.

I think shameful seeing the OpenSource world involved in these classical procedures of wild companies. Of course not about creating new designs. This is about forcing changes in the user without giving a real alternative for the people who want to maintain their machines (or at least some of them). In the ecological side this is a clear complicity in leaving tones of non-recyclable materials in poor countries. This side is really ugly.


kind regards,

jwbrase
April 19th, 2012, 10:28 PM
Unity is good for Keyboard, mouse, track pad and touch screen. hmmmm kinda what the name implies.

Keyboard, yes. Trackpad, yes. Touchscreen, maybe.

Mouse?

You've got to be kidding me. Unity has glaring regressions in terms of usability with a mouse compared to GNOME 2.

KiwiNZ
April 19th, 2012, 10:35 PM
Keyboard, yes. Trackpad, yes. Touchscreen, maybe.

Mouse?

You've got to be kidding me. Unity has glaring regressions in terms of usability with a mouse compared to GNOME 2.

Buy a better mouse;)

jwbrase
April 19th, 2012, 11:11 PM
Buy a better mouse;)

Sorry. The better your mouse is the more Gnome 2 is superior to Unity.

KiwiNZ
April 19th, 2012, 11:29 PM
Sorry. The better your mouse is the more Gnome 2 is superior to Unity.

Not seeing it. I hear mice work well in Win 3.11

Dragonbite
April 20th, 2012, 03:38 AM
Keyboard, yes. Trackpad, yes. Touchscreen, maybe.

Mouse?

You've got to be kidding me. Unity has glaring regressions in terms of usability with a mouse compared to GNOME 2.

There are some aspects of Unity that are not the friendliest with mice but I prefer Unity over Gnome-shell in most cases.

The good thing is Unity is improving and becoming tweak-able.

3rdalbum
April 20th, 2012, 11:13 AM
The inferiority of a touchpad covers them up (and, in a few cases, they help deal with that inferiority). So if you're masochistic enough to use a touchpad, you probably don't even notice them.

I think you'll find that most full-feature computers sold today have trackpads, not mice.

And if using a trackpad is now tolerable on Unity (which it is, to my surprise; I always was a trackpad hater) then that means that someone who uses one with Unity is NOT masochistic. My main computer since Christmas has been a netbook with no mouse. That surprises me as much as it may surprise you.

There's almost nothing that's difficult with mice, except free-hand drawing. If you can do it easily on a trackpad, you can do it easier with a mouse. You can throw a mouse around the screen in a way you can't do with any other device, not even a finger on a touchscreen. Unity works well with touchpads, therefore it also works well with mice.