PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Unity



Gannin
March 16th, 2012, 11:58 PM
I have to say, I like the direction Unity is going in, but the lack of configurability is confusing to me, especially in the up-coming LTS release. An example:

Me: So here's Unity.

Mac Using Friend: Cool. How do I configure my fonts?

Me: You have to go to the software center and install MyUnity, then you can access it from the system settings.

Mac: So I have to install extra software just to configure the fonts?

Me: Yeah.

Mac: Isn't this supposed to be the beta of the version that businesses are supposed to use? (He means the 12.04 LTS beta)

Me: Yeah.

Mac: That's just silly. That doesn't seem very profesional. I wouldn't use this for my business.

Me: *shrug*

It's not exactly the best advertisement for Ubuntu.

coffeecat
March 17th, 2012, 12:00 AM
Not a support request.

Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.

|{urse
March 17th, 2012, 12:04 AM
Of course he wouldn't use the "beta of the business release" for his business. Who would? I guess I don't get the point here. :roll:

rg4w
March 17th, 2012, 12:07 AM
I think the point is there's no built-in way to manage fonts.

whatthefunk
March 17th, 2012, 12:21 AM
The point is that customization is more difficult than it should be and it seems it will continue to be for a while unless the LTS changes dramatically in the next month.

Gannin
March 17th, 2012, 12:40 AM
Yes, as others have pointed out, the point is Unity still lacks many of the basic configuration options that anyone would reasonably expect a desktop OS to have, such as font configuration, the ability to create a custom dash launcher, or the ability to create a custom file association.

In order to do these things, you have to jump through hoops by either installing extra software that most people wouldn't even think about or know the name of if they didn't dig through the Internet to find it, or you have to manually edit configuration files. I can do those things, but why should I? I don't want to have to spend my time doing those things.

Any modern desktop OS should have such configuration features built-in. It's not like you're trying to compile your own kernel. Configuring fonts should be a basic feature.

I wish instead of sticking to the rigid release schedule, Ubuntu would push the 12.04 LTS release back until these basic configuration options were added and the interface was truly polished, so it would be a truly professional release, something worthy of a LTS release, instead of seeming like a standard experimental six-month release.

cariboo
March 17th, 2012, 12:57 AM
Yes, as others have pointed out, the point is Unity still lacks many of the basic configuration options that anyone would reasonably expect a desktop OS to have, such as font configuration, the ability to create a custom dash launcher, or the ability to create a custom file association.

In order to do these things, you have to jump through hoops by either installing extra software that most people wouldn't even think about or know the name of if they didn't dig through the Internet to find it, or you have to manually edit configuration files. I can do those things, but why should I? I don't want to have to spend my time doing those things.

Any modern desktop OS should have such configuration features built-in. It's not like you're trying to compile your own kernel. Configuring fonts should be a basic feature.

I wish instead of sticking to the rigid release schedule, Ubuntu would push the 12.04 LTS release back until these basic configuration options were added and the interface was truly polished, so it would be a truly professional release, something worthy of a LTS release, instead of seeming like a standard experimental six-month release.

The target audience for Ubuntu don't normally change the default font, need custom launchers or create custom file associations. Think about how an average user uses a computer system.

They are considered advanced user activities, and as an advanced user, you are expected to be able to find the information needed to do what you need.

jerrrys
March 17th, 2012, 01:09 AM
I run 12o4 and gnome-classic. Its not gnome2, but it can be configured. Think this will work for a couple of years for me, maybe even 4.

Gannin
March 17th, 2012, 02:09 AM
The target audience for Ubuntu don't normally change the default font, need custom launchers or create custom file associations. Think about how an average user uses a computer system.

They are considered advanced user activities, and as an advanced user, you are expected to be able to find the information needed to do what you need.

With this being a LTS release however, it's generally what businesses are encouraged to use, and configuration options are things that businesses generally need.

And while the average user may not be creating customer launchers left and right, plenty of average users still like to tweak fonts to their liking. They may not change the fonts that are used, but they like to change the hinting and such things.

And besides all that, Gnome 2 had such configuration options and it didn't increase the complexity of the system for the average user. The average user could ignore those configuration options if those chose. That's no reason to not include built-in tools for those that do want to configure things. It makes for a more complete, professional package.

It's pretty bad when Windows has more built-in configurability than a particular release of Linux.

whatthefunk
March 17th, 2012, 11:14 AM
The target audience for Ubuntu don't normally change the default font, need custom launchers or create custom file associations. Think about how an average user uses a computer system.

They are considered advanced user activities, and as an advanced user, you are expected to be able to find the information needed to do what you need.

This is one thing that bugs me about Unity and Ubuntu in general. A truly great OS would make "advanced user activities" simpler and easier for everyone to perform. Ubuntu has gone the other way and instead of making things simpler, has widened the range of "advanced user activities" to include basic things like changing system fonts and moving the default launcher. It has then convinced its user base that since only guys who speak Klingon and spend their lives coding in basement lairs need to do these horrendous things no method needs to be provided.
User: "I want to move my panel."
Ubuntu: "AHHHHHHH!!!!! Danger! DANGER! There be coders there!"
http://www.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nerd-46422.jpg

3rdalbum
March 17th, 2012, 11:27 AM
I don't ever recall seeing a Windows or Mac computer with different fonts. Certainly never a business computer. The only time I've altered fonts was to make a more attractive desktop (not a business use-case) or on OS 9 to turn off the horrible antialiasing in that version of Mac OS.

In any case, it's NOT UNITY at fault. It's Gnome 3. You can't expect Canonical to go around building new GUIs for exotic customization features that were in Gnome 2 but no longer in Gnome 3.

|{urse
March 17th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Again, beta = not ready for business. I have no idea of how satisfied the developers are yet with the beta, but it is still beta.

So far as not having a gui for changing system-wide fonts, I say this with the most respect: "whippity doo".

:lolflag:

philinux
March 17th, 2012, 02:45 PM
Some users have manage to bork their systems by messing with fonts. They managed to make there system unreadable.

Gannin
March 17th, 2012, 07:11 PM
In any case, it's NOT UNITY at fault. It's Gnome 3. You can't expect Canonical to go around building new GUIs for exotic customization features that were in Gnome 2 but no longer in Gnome 3.

Configuring fonts or the panel isn't exotic. It's standard. The other OSes have it. By Unity not having it, it makes the other OSes, such as Windows, more powerful than Ubuntu with Unity. Having such features available doesn't increase the complexity for beginning users, as they wouldn't be going into the configuration areas in the first place.

Just because it's not something you yourself would use doesn't mean it's not needed. Poke around the Internet a bit. Lots of people are asking for it.


Again, beta = not ready for business. I have no idea of how satisfied the developers are yet with the beta, but it is still beta.

So far as not having a gui for changing system-wide fonts, I say this with the most respect: "whippity doo".

:lolflag:

And again, you're missing the point. The point isn't whether the current build of 12.04 is beta or not. The point is it's missing basic configuration options, making them harder than they need to be to access, and that's not going to change in the full release.

|{urse
March 17th, 2012, 07:31 PM
You do realize you're complaining about font customization for businesses, right? Because no business cares about that.

Gannin
March 17th, 2012, 07:41 PM
You do realize you're complaining about font customization for businesses, right? Because no business cares about that.

Wrong again. I'm complaining about the lack of customization in general of Unity.

'Twas my friend that pointed out that it seems unprofessional for a supposed business-class release to lack such customization, with which I happen to agree.

philinux
March 17th, 2012, 09:20 PM
Wrong again. I'm complaining about the lack of customization in general of Unity.

'Twas my friend that pointed out that it seems unprofessional for a supposed business-class release to lack such customization, with which I happen to agree.

Just repeat to your Mac friend that ubuntu is free and install MyUnity which is also free.

|{urse
March 18th, 2012, 01:21 AM
Wrong again. I'm complaining about the lack of customization in general of Unity.

'Twas my friend that pointed out that it seems unprofessional for a supposed business-class release to lack such customization, with which I happen to agree.

Haha, you totally went middle-english on me. 'Twas <-- *snip*

Customization in general, because Windows and Macs are so
out of the box customizable in general?

<sanctimoniousrambling>
None of the small or large business customers I've ever been contracted by or worked for care what it looks like, they want it fast, non-distracting and barebones.. no compositing manager or fancy bs, everything just works the same all day. I don't hate unity(2d) and will continue to provide it as the DE of choice to the few of my employers who have requested Ubuntu. Because it's a pleasant looking, maintained, grandma-safe, desktop environment.
</sanctimoniousrambling>

Now, If your friend said "I think it should be more customizable for me, because I like pimpin my desktop.", that's a different matter I pimp mine too and would urge him to use openbox or kde or gnome-shell or lxde or or any of the 'single command to install' desktop environments instead.

Mikeb85
March 19th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Interesting complaint. I've personally never felt the need to mess with fonts. I also think that Unity is evolving into a very polished DE, once the HUD and whatnot becomes commonplace I think Unity will be the nicest computer DE anywhere, Linux Mac or Windows...

Also, I think the HUD shows alot of promise for future smartphone usage, you can have 'rich' applications, hide all the menus into the easily searchable HUD, and run them on a much smaller screen.

But yeah, fonts. I don't think any business will decide which OS they use based on ease of customizing fonts...

Hylas de Niall
March 19th, 2012, 07:41 PM
This is one thing that bugs me about Unity and http://www.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nerd-46422.jpg

Is that an 8086 XT with a colour display?

I used to do book-keeping on one of those :lolflag:

Gannin
March 19th, 2012, 08:20 PM
Interesting complaint. I've personally never felt the need to mess with fonts. I also think that Unity is evolving into a very polished DE, once the HUD and whatnot becomes commonplace I think Unity will be the nicest computer DE anywhere, Linux Mac or Windows...

Also, I think the HUD shows alot of promise for future smartphone usage, you can have 'rich' applications, hide all the menus into the easily searchable HUD, and run them on a much smaller screen.

Unity does look very polished, and I agree with making the desktop smoother and simpler. I think it's a good direction to go in. However, that doesn't mean built-in customization should be removed.


But yeah, fonts. I don't think any business will decide which OS they use based on ease of customizing fonts...

That in and of itself isn't the point. Customizing fonts is just one example. The point is I think it's rather unprofessional for a full desktop environment to lack so much customization without installing extra programs or modifying configuration files manually. I think that element is a step backward.

|{urse
March 21st, 2012, 03:16 AM
Unity does look very polished, and I agree with making the desktop smoother and simpler. I think it's a good direction to go in. However, that doesn't mean built-in customization should be removed.



That in and of itself isn't the point. Customizing fonts is just one example. The point is I think it's rather unprofessional for a full desktop environment to lack so much customization without installing extra programs or modifying configuration files manually. I think that element is a step backward.

I think you're hung up on the fonts thing still. :lolflag: jk. But I just don't see your side of it, Unity has limited configurability compared to what? Perhaps if there were a supporting argument or a list of

comparisons.

Gannin
March 21st, 2012, 04:01 AM
Two quick examples: Windows and Mac. Heck, in Unity you can't even... you know what, nevermind. I think the lack of built-in configuration options in Unity is a step backward. If you think limiting configurability is a step forward, then that's your opinion.

MasterGamerJK
March 21st, 2012, 05:15 AM
Not a fan! Nuff said.

cariboo
March 21st, 2012, 05:31 AM
Two quick examples: Windows and Mac. Heck, in Unity you can't even... you know what, nevermind. I think the lack of built-in configuration options in Unity is a step backward. If you think limiting configurability is a step forward, then that's your opinion.

So you use Ubuntu exactly as it is installed from the iso? You don't add any extra programs, so that it suits you better?

Here's a question for you, don't be selfish, remember there may be millions of users that use programs you don't use, what should be dropped from the default install so that configuration applets can be included, and still keep the iso size below 700MiB?

click4851
March 21st, 2012, 05:43 AM
I'm with MasterGamerJK, first law of holes.... put down the shovel. Unity is what Mark wants it to be, and nothing, absolutely nothing we say or do will change that. So try Mint/Cinnamon or LXDE or Xubuntu and let the rest beta test for Mark.

Linux = Choice, good luck with yours.

Gannin
March 21st, 2012, 05:59 AM
Gnome 2 had plenty of configuration and options built-in, and they could fit all that on the CD.

Again, I say modern Linux should make configuration easier, not more difficult with more hoops.

So if you think removing customizability is a step forward for the Linux desktop, then great. I don't.

If you think making basic configuration tasks more difficult is a step forward for the Linux desktop, then great. I don't.

One can have a polished, easy to use desktop that still includes built-in configuration options for those that want to use them. Something as simple as being able to right-click on the dash and have a right-click menu with an option to "Create Launcher".

I'm certainly not the only person to point these things out.

I love Linux and I like many things about Unity, but I can also see its weaknesses. Some people perhaps can't so much.

As others have pointed out, it seems that Unity has taken the Apple approach to design, which is, you'll have it their way and that's it. When Mark said he wanted to be better than Apple, I thought he just meant in ease of use, not design philosophy as well.

Even though Unity could meet all its ease-of-use marks as well as offering built-in configuration options, thereby servicing both those that want to configure and those that don't care, instead of focusing on the group that either doesn't care or is more than happy to have someone else make all the configuration decisions for them.

spynappels
March 21st, 2012, 04:27 PM
Is that an 8086 XT with a colour display?

I used to do book-keeping on one of those :lolflag:

Photoshop! Looks like an open web-browser.

to the OP, The customisations required by businesses I've worked with all have to do with locking down and securing, which are customisations carried out by administrators. It certainly wouldn't be a blocking point for them that "pretty" customisations were not easy out of the box·

I would like to see more customisation options personally, but not having them doesn't make my life any worse...

TBABill
March 21st, 2012, 04:50 PM
What's funny is that each release of Unity comes with further customization options. If Unity devs didn't agree with the OP they wouldn't keep making it more configurable with each release. It (Unity) hit the market, just like Gnome 3, before the devs fully understood what the user base wanted in a DE so they continue to work to provide those things while keeping their vision intact.

I don't think Ubuntu devs are at all trying to lock down the desktop with minimal customization. I just think they have a lot more work to do and it takes time so they release what they can as they get it done. Otherwise we'd still be using the first iteration of Unity. We'll get more customization because they continue to build more of it....which shows they do in fact agree with the OP's complaint that there is not yet enough, regardless of the size of the iso or other arguments to the contrary.

|{urse
March 21st, 2012, 05:29 PM
Two quick examples: Windows and Mac. Heck, in Unity you can't even... you know what, nevermind. I think the lack of built-in configuration options in Unity is a step backward. If you think limiting configurability is a step forward, then that's your opinion.

No, I don't think it's a step forward, just a standard pair of shoes. Also, once you learn how to install whatever you want, you've not only learned some linux, you've learned how to customize ANY linux desktop to your liking. Long and short, for the sake of all, I'd rather dead simple things are dead simple and "custom" requires some understanding of the system. Too many bells and whistles = not enough train.

Besides, as I mentioned earlier, less superfluous options = less problems for noobs. Ubuntu with Unity is great because you can hand a windows user a cd and know that they will figure it out fairly easily.

Hylas de Niall
March 21st, 2012, 07:41 PM
Photoshop! Looks like an open web-browser.


LOL! I reckon so ;)

As for Unity, yeah, config options seem to be coming thick and fast now.

At the start i tried Natty, but like many i wasn't all that impressed with Unity and went elsewhere.

Then Oneiric came out, and i run that daily on my trusty little netbook (it suffered repeated crashing on my desktop, else it would still be there instead of the 10.10 install i replaced it with). I'm very happy with Unity now as a netbook/small screen DE - i'll reserve judgement on big screen use as i didn't really get the chance to use it for a long period of time.

I completely understand a lot of folks' issues with the DE (although, as has been pointed out, a great many issues stem from Gnome 3 or the kernel), but for me - an ordinary user - I think Canonical are on to a winner with Unity if they're targeting the masses.

I can't wait for 12.04 now :)

Docaltmed
March 22nd, 2012, 02:14 AM
Dear lord. My company runs on Ubuntu. Nobody really gives a crap about customizing it. They just want to do a good job. Fonts are immaterial.