Has Ubuntu lost it's Ubuntu?

[Copper Bezel]

I came in in 2008, so it's entirely possible I just missed out on the glory days. Alternately, it's the point at which I understand Ubuntu really started to get really useful; I saw a lot of features I really needed come in in those first couple of release upgrades.

For example, users are required to use a bunch of programs that they don't necisarily need. One, the chat plugins. A ton of people probably don't use the built-in chat features b/c they represent security issues (people can tell when you're online and can bug you all hours of the day). They also require the user to be online anyways so why not download them (like gstreamer mp3 plugins) when the user get's online? Then you have tools in a distro that's supposed to please the crowd, which would never be used by most of the crowd. The ones who would use these tools are forced to use less innovative ones b/c they've all been switched out for dumbed down versions.

gstreamer plugins have to be downloaded separately, because the user has to confirm that he or she is taking responsibility for doing something illegal. They're also not a visible part of the desktop, and they run when called. The chat menu runs when Unity is called, so you can't install it and have it immediately accessible (without restarting the entire wm.)

And indicator-messages still removes easy enough. I'm not going to claim I don't. At least it doesn't show until it's theoretically useful and you have an online account enabled, although that doesn't make it useful to me.

I wish Unity would consider a module layout. The sidebar could go anywhere along the screen (even at the bottom). The search bar, results, filters in the dash were all modules that could be placed any way you liked. New modules could be added by other programmers. You could keep the dash out of certain parts of the desktop, you could change theme colors,

I don't see the benefit, particularly since Compiz can still be run over modular desktops. But the integrated desktop does a lot of things modular desktops can't. Compiz Scale got a lot more attractive and useful with the Unity dock available. (Still irritates me that the menu bar isn't accessible in Scale and Expo.)

Compiz-settings still allowed you to make those awesome modifications to windows, you could make your window transparent when you didn't want other people looking at it (I would always turn the transparency down when I was younger so I could see something and no one else could).

That still works. I mean, since you mentioned it, I'm typing into a transparent note right now, and I set my dialogue windows to be slightly transparent, too.

Probably better to use lower-contrast system colors, though, both easier on the eyes and less peekable.

I can still change the system theme and input settings and add scripts to arbitrarily keystrokes, like the toggle I use for my trackpad. I can still set window rules, add apps that run as indicator applets, remove applets I don't like, and so on. And ultimately, I can still run a modular desktop under Compiz if I feel like it. I had to rebuild Unity to get rid of the multitouch catching so that I could reassign three- and four-finger gestures, and that irritated me slightly - those probably should have been Compiz settings, but I only say that because the defaults are terrible.

I think you're mixing up Ubuntu's values with customization. For a lot of people (me included) having a more reliable consistent desktop that is easier for people to use is more important than moving the launcher. For all those cosmetic features you've mentioned we've gained a ton more real features (like proper multimonitors support and better multitasking) than say, having windows catch on fire. For the search bar, results, and filters, those are already modularized, people can mix and match scopes as they see fit and people do write different scopes and lenses for different services.

Yeah, I feel this. The customization features are often break-even propositions (doing as much good as bad,) and I'd certainly rather see fingers and eyeballs set to doing something with a more obvious benefit.

[buzzingrobot]

The OP seems to want Gnome 2, as delivered in early Ubuntu, and also something that died about two years ago. If that's correct, MATE offers Gnome 2 in all-but-name. It works fine on 12.04 and up.

I have to say I don't agree with the whole "dumbed down" attack, on Unity, to Gnome Shell or anything else.

[Soul-Sing]

Canonical is a company, Ubuntu is not a community distro, this has always been the case.

LOL a distro as Ubuntu was based on the community, community effort and a sort of Philosophy. The last one with a capital. The Humanity Towards Other statement, the Desmond Tutu linkage.
Is Ubuntu still being proud of its name? Or is it just marketing, empty and meaningless? The Philosophy part did attrack many, many persons. It made Ubuntu different from the hundreds of other distro's.

[ki4jgt]

LOL a distro as Ubuntu was based on the community, community effort and a sort of Philosophy. The last one with a capital. The Humanity Towards Other statement, the Desmond Tutu linkage.
Is Ubuntu still being proud of its name? Or is it just marketing, empty and meaningless? The Philosophy part did attrack many, many persons. It made Ubuntu different from the hundreds of other distro's.

I can remember these days. I know I've used it at least since 6.04. Back then Ubuntu was practically begging the users (in a nice way) to contribute with translations, keyboard layout, ideatorrents, names and art suggestions (they still do it all but the direct links between dev and user have been broken and user input is taken less seriously). Users were encouraged to fix and share the solutions of their own problems and distribute their own patches. The patches are still distributed by Ubuntu but it isn't asking it's users for this assistence. They're cut out of the loop. Instead of the devs asking the users directly for community input, the users have to hunt down most third-party services themselves. The tinkering then was what made the OS innovative and fresh for the users. I know I wondered what new problem I'd have to tackle with every single release but b/c of those problems, Ubuntu was on the bleeding edge of desktop usability. They would take risks for innovations that were AWESOME! That's what got it where it was. It was different and wasn't afraid to get it's feet wet with mistakes. That's actually the idea behind the FSM itself. IDK, I kind of miss those days. No distros perfect and I honestly think we should have stable, stable release, and a stable tinkering release that shows off new Unity concepts. Ubuntu wouldn't be destroying it's current clientell and it would be free to try **NEW** bleeding edge technology.

[1clue]

I guess I have 2 things to say, some of which has been sort-of said before here. One more voice into the roar I guess.

Both of my points blur together. I'll start with the look.

Most of the *buntu installations (and most of the other distros too) I have contact with are in a professional setting. The images that have a GUI, most people I know want it to look at least somewhat professional. Ubuntu is free, it's easy to install and and easy to configure, especially if you want a lightweight VM for a service. My preferred way to install is to start with server, then install whatever desktop. That said, the Windows and Mac installations I see aren't really very professional looking either, after the users get done with them. I could care less what desktop background looks like, as long as kids and coworkers can see it without causing problems.

Unity: I don't like Unity but I don't make a big deal about it either. It's not Unity hate, it's just not useful for me. Making your computer behave more like a cell phone is sort of like making your car behave more like a toaster. Instead, I just use Xubuntu, and let the win8 crowd use the main distro, it has nothing to do with me.

Now, regarding the installation image: Face it. Chances are the CD you download is already stale. The packages on it are frozen in time, and as soon as you boot into the final image you have to do an update anyway. Why bother putting that stuff on the CD? The bigger the image, the more stuff you have to download twice.

Hardware: If you go to Wal-Mart (which is where way too many Americans buy their computers) you'll notice that probably half of them don't even have a CD, and the externals are mostly the reader rather than a burner. However you can buy a 64G USB stick right there, without ordering online, and it's pretty cheap. Probably the USB stick has a faster data transfer rate than the CD would have. A CD/DVD is a dinosaur that we should help become extinct. Your old hardware that has a CD-ROM but not a DVD probably supports a big USB stick anyway, either that or it probably doesn't support a modern distro.

I think the installer should have:

1. A really good partitioning tool
2. Ability to handle RAID, LVM, root-on-NFS, root-on-NAS and just about any other scheme that people use, in such a way that n00bs aren't confused. Like an "advanced" button.
3. Ability to install a non-gui server with a gui installer. There's absolutely no reason why it can't work.
4. An ssh server that allows connections to the local network that comes up automatically if no screen is detected.
5. A basic installer-only X implementation that is good enough to handle an install for a novice.
6. Screen shots and information about each variant, including what makes it different and what sort of audience the variant is targeted at.
7. Screen shots of at least one minimal but typical non-desktop implementation, like blackbox, for people who want a bare bones gui to facilitate maintenance.
8. The xorg files should be left off. They're big, and you're going to have to download most of them again anyway.

I think the all-defaults install should give the main variant. I think you should be able to choose server, any variant or a basic minimal-X setup with something like blackbox.

In any case, I think the CD should only contain minimal software to get the system installed with basic configuration. The rest should be downloaded as you go.

Edit: Better yet, rather than shipping screen shots the installer should hit a web site with the screen shots.

[ki4jgt]

[FONT=arial]gstreamer plugins have to be downloaded separately, because the user has to confirm that he or she is taking responsibility for doing something illegal. They're also not a visible part of the desktop, and they run when called. The chat menu runs when Unity is called, so you can't install it and have it immediately accessible (without restarting the entire wm.)

And indicator-messages still removes easy enough. I'm not going to claim I don't. At least it doesn't show until it's theoretically useful and you have an online account enabled, although that doesn't make it useful to me.

That still works. I mean, since you mentioned it, I'm typing into a transparent note right now, and I set my dialogue windows to be slightly transparent, too.

First point, gstreamer plugins require Internet though and they can't be used until you download them. Why do we need a chat system that most people don't use included in the OS defaultly from install? Why not simply (since it requires Internet anyways) install it if the user wants to integrate Facebook, google, etc, etc?

I don't want them to remove the indicator app, just install a base for it and install the plugins that people want to link accounts to as they link those accounts.

In the old compiz-settings, you could assign a keyboard shortcut to turn you transparency up and down as needed. If you were in public, you could turn your transparency down and people around you had no idea what you were doing (in one specific window) and then turn it back up when those particular people left) You could burn your windows closed (flames would actually consume them), you could turn your desktop into a 3D cube and rotate the cube to the desktop you needed. There were several other things compiz allowed you to do. You could arrange the desktop bars and put whatever you wanted on them. There were lock buttons in place so once you got it all configured the way you wanted, you could keep from "accidents." I'm not wanting Gnome2, just wishing that unity and the Ubuntu deskto were a bit more configurable and it didn't look the same as every other Unity desktop out there. That's what I'm saying, community should give everyone the choice to customize their desktop the way they like it. You've changed a desktop wallpaper, transparency to a few windows (that you can't easily change back), and a few colors. This is nothing compared to what orignally brought hundreds of geeks and techies to the Ubuntu desktop. Watch some of the old Ubuntu videos on Youtube. You'll see a lot of functionality missing.

EDIT:
Check this out for starters. This was just the tip of the iceberg back in the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abWn4QrlzRI again, I'm not hating Unity. I'm asking if we're missing our community attitude. The thing that makes us a group of users. The users being unable to make their own modifications and have their desktops personalized is a part of this.

[snowpine]

"The people" in 2013 don't want the same things as "the people" in 2004. Look at the runaway success of the iPad for example. Should Canonical ignore all these changes in what consumers expect and continue to crank out brown and orange Gnome 2 desktops?

[castrojo]

Check this out for starters. This was just the tip of the iceberg back in the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abWn4QrlzRI again, I'm not hating Unity. I'm asking if we're missing our community attitude. The thing that makes us a group of users. The users being unable to make their own modifications and have their desktops personalized is a part of this.

Ubuntu didn't do this out of the box back then either people went and configured it to do that. These days most of those plugins are unmaintained and no one's really stepped up to do the work.

[ki4jgt]

Ubuntu didn't do this out of the box back then either people went and configured it to do that. These days most of those plugins are unmaintained and no one's really stepped up to do the work.

This I know. I installed compiz settings manager to do most of this stuff myself but could the packages possibly be updated to do this? Is Unity compatible with these features now?

Moving on from the configurations, it's almost sounding as if I'm downing it now. The art for example, it doesn't even relate to the distro anymore. It's just one beautiful thing after another (like every other OS). In this sense, the community could have a service for submitted art where the user votes on an image's beauty, simplicity, relatability (to the distro), humanism, and originality. This way the users would still contribute and not just see what pops up in the next distro.

[mikodo]

Really?

I take the Ubuntu of today, as mature and keeping with the times. I hope the "Nailed Down" version attracts some heavy hitting OEM's for mobile devices and Canonical is wildly successful with Ubuntu.

I have been playing with Xubuntu/Kubuntu/Lubuntu and find them more configurable. If you go to the DE's web-sites and other disto's info pages, there is lots more documentation on configuring them. I like the way the "Ubuntu Community", is still very vibrant in producing Wiki's and documentation which even has a page on Customizing and Maintaining Ubuntu, something if you haven't accessed yet, might be of interest.

If it is special effects that you want, another maintained and more stable compositor alternative to compiz is Kwin. It works of course with Kubuntu. Here's a link that shows how to install Kwin on Xubuntu 13.04.

;p