PDA

View Full Version : Is Ubuntu moving in the right direction?



Chiel92
May 18th, 2012, 06:17 PM
Hi all!

I really enjoy the opensource world and I'm very grateful to all those people contributing to it, especially to the team behind the ubuntu development.
They are doing a great job.

However, I have my concerns about the last few ubuntu releases.
I don't know if it's all caused by unity, or if it's something else.
There is a bunch of annoyances in the desktop environment, which I will not mention here now, as they are not that important, and they are probably known to you.
(They concern window focus, hotkeys and dash functionality.)
Note that these things are not really bugs, but rather annoyances.

There are also a few major issues which I constantly encounter, whereof I will mention the most important here.
- Like in windows, some applications crash randomly and I get an error report request.
It strongly reminds me of those days when I used windows.
- Also, sometimes the windowmanager suddenly crashes or so. Then the window bars dissappear.
- When I press superkey-w in order to get an overview of all my applications, the whole desktop glitches like a big grey whirlwindoze.
And there is more.

I am just wondering: where is the fast stable ubuntu that I knew as lucid lynx?
Is this gonna be regular, or will it get better next releases?

My second question is: How can I get a good stable system? Will installing a different Desktop Environment (Like gnome 2, from ubuntu 10.04) solve the problems? Or do I really have to move to debian?

Kind regards!

sloggerkhan
May 18th, 2012, 06:21 PM
Eh, I know where you're coming from. I'm thinking about giving Arch or Mint a whirl.

I think Ubuntu is becoming too consumer friendly, which makes it less useful for me, though great for people who love to tweet and browse facebook.

Version Dependency
May 18th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Is Ubuntu moving in the right direction?

What kind of question is this? There obviously is no universal answer to this. For me, yea Ubuntu is everything I could want in a distro. For you? How the heck would any of us know but you? Considering your thread here, it's obvious you don't like Ubuntu though...so...find one you like.


My second question is: How can I get a good stable system? Will installing a different Desktop Environment (Like gnome 2, from ubuntu 10.04) solve the problems? Or do I really have to move to debian?

Virtualbox....virtualbox....virtualbox.

Install Xubuntu, or Debian, or Mint, or Bodhi, or Crunchbang, or any other distro you can think of. You can download all the ones I named and install them in a couple of hours. You can install all the DEs and WMs you've never tried in a virtualbox as well.

woxuxow
May 18th, 2012, 06:32 PM
in my opinion ubuntu is the most and best popular distribution
i love unity
i haven`t any big problem with ubuntu like what you had

i suggest debian

Linuxratty
May 18th, 2012, 06:34 PM
if it makes a difference in the Linux world,I'll say yes.

QIII
May 18th, 2012, 06:35 PM
With Debian you trade fresh and cutting edge for old and stable. You can find bleeding edge rolling distros, too. You'll have to make the choice.

As for other distros: I've had them all and cured them all. There is no perfect distribution. Each will have its annoyances. As suggested above, use VirtualBox to test them all out. Pick the one that causes you the least aggravation.

But remember that a virtualized machine is limited in its hardware to that which is provided in the hardware abstraction layer of the virtualization software. You won't get a good feel for real hardware performance without a bare metal installation.

nothingspecial
May 18th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.

QIII
May 18th, 2012, 06:40 PM
...which makes it less useful for me...

Why so?

Change the window dressing. It's still Linux under the hood.

You can make it a Cadillac or a screaming street rod. Nobody is forcing you to stick with the default.

And yes, it is tending towards consumers. Why shouldn't it? Novices can use Linux, can't they? You can still have it your way if you want.

LillyDragon
May 18th, 2012, 06:42 PM
I haven't really noticed any changes in keyboard shortcuts, come to think of it. Then again, I'm running Xubuntu because I immediately became frustrated with Unity's awkward tablet UI and how broken GNOME's fallback session was. I still don't have window borders or working virtual desktops on GNOME Shell!

Besides, Xfce is way better than GNOME 2 was either way, so I'm happy I have that as an option, and would sooner recommend Xubuntu to anyone I know than vanilla Ubuntu.

Outside my qualms with the official flavor's look and feel, I haven't had any real stability problems. I'd see a crash report from time to time, but they're becoming fewer and don't really lock up the window manager. Most of those crashes were from buggy games in the Software Center anyway. What kind of hardware are you running? And is it a laptop?

Chiel92
May 18th, 2012, 08:32 PM
Eh, I know where you're coming from. I'm thinking about giving Arch or Mint a whirl.

I think Ubuntu is becoming too consumer friendly, which makes it less useful for me, though great for people who love to tweet and browse facebook.

Thanks for your understanding reply! :)
However Arch will probably be too time-consuming for me.
Ubuntu is great because most things are plug and play.


What kind of question is this? There obviously is no universal answer to this. For me, yea Ubuntu is everything I could want in a distro. For you? How the heck would any of us know but you? Considering your thread here, it's obvious you don't like Ubuntu though...so...find one you like.I realize I should have put this question a little bit different.
I am not complaining about user-friendliness or anything related.
My concerns are on stability as explained in my post.

Ubuntu develops really fast, which I think is really great!!
Of course this results sometimes in unstable systems, which is not a problem for beta (or incidentally normal) releases, but which IS actually a problem for LTS releases.
From what I read on the internet, it is said that 12.04 is even less stable than 11.04...


I think Ubuntu is becoming too consumer friendly,Can you mention a few problems this causes for you?


With Debian you trade fresh and cutting edge for old and stable. You can find bleeding edge rolling distros, too. You'll have to make the choice.I agree with that. However I would really want both of them :) (And who doesn't?)


What kind of hardware are you running? And is it a laptop? Yeah a laptop.
Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU T6600 @ 2.20GHz × 2
GeForce G210M/PCIe/SSE2

Chiel92
May 18th, 2012, 08:33 PM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.
Hehe, I tried to create this thread in this subforum, but apparently that isn't possible :p

wilee-nilee
May 18th, 2012, 09:08 PM
Hi all!

I really enjoy the opensource world and I'm very grateful to all those people contributing to it, especially to the team behind the ubuntu development.
They are doing a great job.

However, I have my concerns about the last few ubuntu releases.
I don't know if it's all caused by unity, or if it's something else.
There is a bunch of annoyances in the desktop environment, which I will not mention here now, as they are not that important, and they are probably known to you.
(They concern window focus, hotkeys and dash functionality.)
Note that these things are not really bugs, but rather annoyances.

There are also a few major issues which I constantly encounter, whereof I will mention the most important here.
- Like in windows, some applications crash randomly and I get an error report request.
It strongly reminds me of those days when I used windows.
- Also, sometimes the windowmanager suddenly crashes or so. Then the window bars dissappear.
- When I press superkey-w in order to get an overview of all my applications, the whole desktop glitches like a big grey whirlwindoze.
And there is more.

I am just wondering: where is the fast stable ubuntu that I knew as lucid lynx?
Is this gonna be regular, or will it get better next releases?

My second question is: How can I get a good stable system? Will installing a different Desktop Environment (Like gnome 2, from ubuntu 10.04) solve the problems? Or do I really have to move to debian?

Kind regards!

Adaptation is how a species survives in the wild, and how a person gets through life without mulling on trivial stuff and improves. ;)

As a species, humans have had the exact same brain for 250,000 years it is adaptation that brought us where we are today.

sloggerkhan
May 18th, 2012, 10:02 PM
Why so?

Change the window dressing. It's still Linux under the hood.

You can make it a Cadillac or a screaming street rod. Nobody is forcing you to stick with the default.

And yes, it is tending towards consumers. Why shouldn't it? Novices can use Linux, can't they? You can still have it your way if you want.

Basically I don't like having to reconfigure stuff that doesn't match my needs. I view it as wasted time. That's all. I don't dispute that you can change lots of stuff about Ubuntu.

I might come back later to explain in more detail, but that's the gist of it.

Skara Brae
May 18th, 2012, 10:58 PM
Adaptation is how a species survives in the wild, and how a person gets through life without mulling on trivial stuff and improves. ;)

As a species, humans have had the exact same brain for 250,000 years it is adaptation that brought us where we are today.
I am noticing how computer programs are coming to a point where they are just "finished", meaning they have reached their maximum in terms of user-friendliness.

Firefox. MS Windows. Ubuntu. To name just a few.

Still, the developers continue "developing" their software, and in my personal opinion things start getting less "finished" than they were. And then things only go downhill, proverbially speaking.

I am afraid that Ubuntu may turn into something that I will no longer like (like, I am now thinking of Unity), and then I will have to switch to another distro, sadly. I realise that this is, as most things, personal (but still) and, so, discussing this does not really have a point.

zombifier25
May 19th, 2012, 09:53 AM
I am noticing how computer programs are coming to a point where they are just "finished", meaning they have reached their maximum in terms of user-friendliness.

Firefox. MS Windows. Ubuntu. To name just a few.

Still, the developers continue "developing" their software, and in my personal opinion things start getting less "finished" than they were. And then things only go downhill, proverbially speaking.

I am afraid that Ubuntu may turn into something that I will no longer like (like, I am now thinking of Unity), and then I will have to switch to another distro, sadly. I realise that this is, as most things, personal (but still) and, so, discussing this does not really have a point.

Regarding software developing, you have no idea how wrong your statement is.

Docaltmed
May 19th, 2012, 10:30 AM
I honestly, for the life of me, can't figure out what people's attraction to drop-down, nested menus is.

First you have to remember in which category you stashed your application, and then you have to run up and down the category list until you find the application, then click to get it, then you open the program, then you open the file browser within the program, scroll up and down that until you find the file you want, click on the file to open it.


Meh. With Unity, I hit a key, type a word from the filename (or even a word in the file -- I've got the recoll scope installed), pick my file, click, I've got it.

Better yet with music! Hit Super, type in part of the name of a song I want to listen to, Dash gives me a list of matching songs, another click and I'm listening.

You want to spend your life wandering through drop-down menus, if that suits your speed, that's fine. For some people, they work very very well.

But, frankly, you would have to drag me back with horses, kicking and screaming the whole way, to get me to use an old-school interface like Gnome 2 again.

wilee-nilee
May 19th, 2012, 10:33 AM
I honestly, for the life of me, can't figure out what people's attraction to drop-down, nested menus is.

First you have to remember in which category you stashed your application, and then you have to run up and down the category list until you find the application, then click to get it, then you open the program, then you open the file browser within the program, scroll up and down that until you find the file you want, click on the file to open it.


Meh. With Unity, I hit a key, type a word from the filename (or even a word in the file -- I've got the recoll scope installed), pick my file, click, I've got it.

Better yet with music! Hit Super, type in part of the name of a song I want to listen to, Dash gives me a list of matching songs, another click and I'm listening.

You want to spend your life wandering through drop-down menus, if that suits your speed, that's fine. For some people, they work very very well.

But, frankly, you would have to drag me back with horses, kicking and screaming the whole way, to get me to use an old-school interface like Gnome 2 again.

Can I hear a amen brothers and sisters. ;)

Chiel92
May 19th, 2012, 11:34 AM
I honestly, for the life of me, can't figure out what people's attraction to drop-down, nested menus is.

First you have to remember in which category you stashed your application, and then you have to run up and down the category list until you find the application, then click to get it, then you open the program, then you open the file browser within the program, scroll up and down that until you find the file you want, click on the file to open it.


Meh. With Unity, I hit a key, type a word from the filename (or even a word in the file -- I've got the recoll scope installed), pick my file, click, I've got it.

Better yet with music! Hit Super, type in part of the name of a song I want to listen to, Dash gives me a list of matching songs, another click and I'm listening.

You want to spend your life wandering through drop-down menus, if that suits your speed, that's fine. For some people, they work very very well.

But, frankly, you would have to drag me back with horses, kicking and screaming the whole way, to get me to use an old-school interface like Gnome 2 again.

Sure, the idea behind the new desktop unity is just awesome.
But the implementation and stability and stuff are not that awesome.

wolfen69
May 20th, 2012, 05:50 AM
My second question is: How can I get a good stable system?
That's easy. Get linux compatible hardware. I've owned/built many computers over the years, and rarely had even a hiccup using linux. Research, knowledge, and the willingness to implement those things learned, are the key(s).

It's really very simple.

carl4926
May 20th, 2012, 05:56 AM
I didn't much like Unity at first. But I've come to love it. Actually I think it has to be said, it's inspired!

There is a nice review in Linux Format of our new 12.04 release, it arrived in my mail yesterday.

heldal
May 20th, 2012, 08:20 AM
How do you define "the right direction"?

Seriously, these discussions usually deteriorate into rants about the desktop or choice of applications in the default install.

I'm more concerned about other long-term developments. I suspect that what we see is a result of the influence from a new generation of developers raised in a computing environments where application restarts and even system reboots are acceptable solutions/workarounds for a problem. This "Microsoft legacy" affect the entire ICT industry and FOSS has not been able to escape. Ubuntu is infected just as much as any other distribution. The sad result is that the reliability of a modern Ubuntu, Fedora or any other distribution is no match to their predecessors 10 or 15 years ago.

This goes beyond reduced reliability though. Troubleshooting gets harder as many applications that previously had debugging facilities built in via tty i/o (stderr/stdout) no longer offer any such help when there's a problem.

It's also nearly impossible to say anything about the state of a system when the boot-process has been completed. Slapping a pretty image across the screen to hide startup-details from the average user is one thing, but diagnostic info has suffered too. Today there's often just a mess of badly formatted information behind the pretty boot-image where init-scripts and system processes previously presented useful information for system administrators. Following a crash or power-outage, systems may be thrown into recovery-processes that take hours on the next boot with little to no feedback.

Chiel92
May 20th, 2012, 01:56 PM
That's easy. Get linux compatible hardware. I've owned/built many computers over the years, and rarely had even a hiccup using linux. Research, knowledge, and the willingness to implement those things learned, are the key(s).

It's really very simple.


Thanks for the advice! I will pay closely attention to it when I buy a new pc.
The pc I'm using now is a laptop. I didnt care at all about hardware and stuff when I bought it. It was good pc for a reasonable price.
One small question: How can I easily verify wether hardware is supported by ubuntu or not?

BigSilly
May 20th, 2012, 02:32 PM
If I can presume for a moment, and step out of the situation and view things from an outsider POV, that the "right direction" is to become a proper alternative OS to Windows and Mac, then yes this is the right direction and Ubuntu is now on track imho. To me, it looks the part, works incredibly well, and means business. The recent changes affected upon the system have gone a long way to giving the OS a wider demographic imho. Many might not like that, but I do feel it's a good direction to take and I hope it does well.

Chiel92
May 20th, 2012, 03:02 PM
If I can presume for a moment, and step out of the situation and view things from an outsider POV, that the "right direction" is to become a proper alternative OS to Windows and Mac, then yes this is the right direction and Ubuntu is now on track imho.

I agree with your observation. I hope that Ubuntu is NOT gonna look like windows. I hope the bugs I experience regarding random crashes of applications (very windows-like) will be fixed soon and the fast performance will be maintained.

Skara Brae
May 21st, 2012, 12:03 AM
Regarding software developing, you have no idea how wrong your statement is.
You may be right.

But when I as a user compare, say, Firefox 3.6 with later Firefox versions, then I conclude that 3.6 is "better" (but yes, note the quotation marks). Or Windows XP vs Vista/7. Or the new Gnome version vs the previous one.

Why (always) changing things? Just keep them the way they are. They work fine. No need to change them. Is a new version always better?

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 02:02 AM
I have to say no, a a long time linux user who has used Ubuntu I have to say that Unity is a poor choice and so is gnome shell.
Both are more for touchscreens then desktops and I am not getting a touchscreen just for a crappy interface.
If I wanted an iphone like UI I would have gotten an iphone by now.
Both are locked down, non customizable pieces of junk in my eyes and while both have some extensions and mods both are a pain to set up to make them work the way you want them too.
We should have kept gnome classic.

Face-Ache
May 23rd, 2012, 02:34 AM
I agree with BigSilly's point about it now having a much wider demographic, but i find it to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. What i mean by that, is that it looks like a user-friendly OS, appears to be very similar to Windows, but once you get into it, you realise that under the hood is a finely tuned machine, where even the smallest adjustment can have major effects, negative effects, on the system.

I can't remember who, but one the regulars has a signature that says something like "Linux assumes you know what you are doing", and that pretty much sums it all up. For me anyway, as a fairly recent adopter of Ubuntu.

And there's the rub with Linux getting beyond it's 1% market share; most average users aren't experts, and don't really know what they are doing. I believe that the normal person with a basic working knowledge of computers wants something intuitive, and visual, like a functional but simple GUI. And quite frankly, the Terminal environment just isn't.

Sure, it's super-powerful and able to be customised up the wazoo, but you have to become an expert to be able to achieve this - not everyone has the time or inclination to become an expert, they just want stuff to work.

Like my recent escapades in trying to figure out Conky. I don't want to have to learn a new language just to get a bit of eye-candy on my screen. The reward simply isn't worth the sheer volume of time it takes to get up to speed with this kind of configuration technique. It seems that for most people on here, with a deep interest in the product/OS, that's not such an issue. But for a normal, everyday user, it's intimidating and puts you off.

I sooo want to love Ubuntu, and i do; open source is fantastic, i appreciate that this is an operating system that is totally 100% free. And the support via forums like this, is just amazing.

So yes, i do think Ubuntu is going in the right direction, but it needs to be more than just cosmetic - a genuinely user-friendly, intuitive interface, that moves away from rather unwieldy and scary configuration methods like the Terminal.

Now before y'all flame me to a cinder, remember i'm just a novice user, trying to get to grips with a completely new operating system. I think that puts me in a good position to be objective about how hard it is for a new user to actually stick with Ubuntu, and Linux in general, long-term. I believe that a lot of users try it, realise it's considerably harder to work with than it looks, and then move back to Windows.

:D

KiwiNZ
May 23rd, 2012, 02:44 AM
I have to say no, a a long time linux user who has used Ubuntu I have to say that Unity is a poor choice and so is gnome shell.
Both are more for touchscreens then desktops and I am not getting a touchscreen just for a crappy interface.
If I wanted an iphone like UI I would have gotten an iphone by now.
Both are locked down, non customizable pieces of junk in my eyes and while both have some extensions and mods both are a pain to set up to make them work the way you want them too.
We should have kept gnome classic.

Where is Unity remotely like IOS, oh that's right it has colours.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 03:13 AM
Where is Unity remotely like IOS, oh that's right it has colours.

AND you cant change much about it, its a locked down UI how much more do I have to say other then I think KDE is far better as at least I can move the toolbars and stuff where I want them as opposed to locked at one side and have the ability to have my windows cover my dock as opposed to autohide which is next to useless or take a sizable chunk of my screen.
Dumping window dodge was a terrible idea, especially from a new users perspective

KiwiNZ
May 23rd, 2012, 03:16 AM
AND you cant change much about it, its a locked down UI how much more do I have to say other then I think KDE is far better as at least I can move the toolbars and stuff where I want them as opposed to locked at one side and have the ability to have my windows cover my dock as opposed to autohide which is next to useless or take a sizable chunk of my screen.
Dumping window dodge was a terrible idea, especially from a new users perspective

So it's not like a Mobile device then.

ExSuSEusr
May 23rd, 2012, 03:16 AM
First, there are as many variables in deciding on a distro (hardware, needs, personal preferences) as there are distros.

It boils down to your personal preferences, your hardware needs, functionality that best suits your requirements, and the list goes on.

For ME. I like to tweak and play around, but I like to tweak and play around - but I like to tweak and play around when I want to - not because I have to.

As I stated in another post - Ubuntu was an absolute nightmare trying to get working on my home built gaming desktop. I spent most of a weekend trying to get everything I wanted and needed set up so I could use the blasted thing. SO.... I went to Mint. Mint installed on my desktop beautifully - runs beautifully. The only thing I had to do was install Cinnamon and vid card drivers. Everything worked.

Now with my laptop - I couldn't even get Mint to install. Sure, I suppose with a few hours of researching and reading I could get it installed if I really wanted. But, there in lies the crux - I don't want to have to do that. So, I went back to Ubuntu on my laptop - installed Ubuntu and the damn thing works so well I am about to format the Windows 7 partition and say good bye to Windows forever on this computer.

When it comes to enjoying the tweaking and playing around element. Sure, there are nights when I want to screw around with compiz, or whatever.... BUT that is different than HAVING to sit there for two hours trying to get the damn video card work to its full potential. Yet, there are other people who take a lot of joy in the challenge of getting their video card to work and who could care less about screwing around with compiz.

To each their own.

As far as Ubuntu going in the wrong direction. Well, my PERSONAL OPINION - keep in mind I don't follow Canonical - I don't read up on them. So, I am merely basing this opinion off observations and personal experiences.

I think Ubuntu is considering the tablet market and they are concerned with the laptop market. I think that's pretty smart actually.

I look at desktops like the hard line phones of "yesteryear" - once the cell phones exploded the home phone has taken major hits and as time moves along less and less people are keeping the home phone. In fact of all the people I know - maybe 2 or 3 still have home phones - they all have cell phones. Where desktops are concerned - I am seeing the same thing. Less and less people are keeping desktops in their homes. In my line of work I see a lot of businesses moving towards laptops too - my office when completely to laptops this past year.

As laptops become more and more powerful - and there is another post in this forum talking about laptops and the direction they are going - desktops will eventually go the way of the 8 track player - now add the tablets and it hurts desktops even more.

To be honest I don't know why I even keep my desktop around - my games run smoother on my laptop. However, I am sure there will be a lot of people coming here explaining why their desktop is so important to them and that's fine. I'm just saying, in general.

Again, my opinion and I have no facts or numbers to base it on.

If Ubuntu is focused on the laptop and tablet market - good for them - I think it's a smart move. And, I personally feel that is the direction they are going. It struck me when I installed Ubuntu on my DESKTOP and had a battery icon on my screen.... odd considering that desktops don't have batteries.

As for Unity - well sure it looks and feels like a tablet OS - and that might very well be what Canonical wants to eventually see it used. I hated it at first - I really hated it. Then after some time I actually started liking it. I think it's GOOD to strike out in a different direction for a desktop. We've been using the same "menu" button for decades... why not explore something different - you can't have progress without chance and experimentation.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 03:58 AM
So it's not like a Mobile device then.

Again it goes down to the lack of customization and as a long time linux user it sucks not being able to do what you want without a million different add ons to make it work the way you want it to.
When windows is a more customizable OS (and it is) you know you did something wrong

KiwiNZ
May 23rd, 2012, 04:06 AM
It's use is not compulsory

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 04:15 AM
It's use is not compulsory

Yes but a new user is not going to know that now are they?

zombifier25
May 23rd, 2012, 04:19 AM
No, but they will learn it, like a new Windows user. If they are willing to try a new OS and don't want to learn it, then they're welcomed to move back to Windows.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 04:22 AM
Still if linux intends on getting more users it needs to make things that can work.
And I think its done a great job of that until gnome shell reeled its ugly head.

Face-Ache
May 23rd, 2012, 04:48 AM
I think there's a big difference between learning a new OS, finding your way around it etc, and having to become an expert in how it works 'under the hood'.

Sometimes it just feels like simple things in Ubuntu are just really difficult to do, particularly for the average joe.

If you've and interest in, and an aptitude for, such things, probably not a big deal tinkering 'under the hood'. I've no problem admitting that i'm a novice user, and i guess what i'm saying is that i'm happy to largely stay a novice user, rather than be forced into becoming an expert.

By all means, allow more advanced users to write their code and do their scripts and go ape in the Terminal, just develop/introduce some easier-to-use tools for us idio... err ..... less skilled folks :D

KiwiNZ
May 23rd, 2012, 05:06 AM
Yes but a new user is not going to know that now are they?

A new user probably wont care and they are more open to change.

OGpmpdog
May 23rd, 2012, 05:23 AM
Still if linux intends on getting more users it needs to make things that can work.
And I think its done a great job of that until gnome shell reeled its ugly head.

I've been using Gnome3 since last June. Superbutton search is awesome...*sigh* and easier/faster than cycling through menus:lolflag:

I trashed Unity in Natty and Oneiric, but Precise Unity today is interesting to use!!

Today, Gnome 2 feels awkward, almost stale, as I still have Karmic, Lucid, and Natty in rotation :)

I've discovered the Ubuntu user experience is more relaxed when you decide to evolve with Ubuntu.

Yes, I believe Ubuntu is evolving as its user base is expanding. Experienced geeks can still dare breakage - and average users can be hand-held with Unity. There's a flavor for all tastes.

Chiel92
May 23rd, 2012, 08:40 AM
I have to say no, a a long time linux user who has used Ubuntu I have to say that Unity is a poor choice and so is gnome shell.
Both are more for touchscreens then desktops and I am not getting a touchscreen just for a crappy interface.
If I wanted an iphone like UI I would have gotten an iphone by now.
Both are locked down, non customizable pieces of junk in my eyes and while both have some extensions and mods both are a pain to set up to make them work the way you want them too.
We should have kept gnome classic.

I think it is possible to combine touchscreen DE's with pc DE's.
For me, as long as there are good shortcuts working very well (which is not really the case at the moment due to a few bugs) I am content.

I agree with you saying that there is too less that is customizable.
There should be more software like ubuntu tweak.

Maybe it's also a good idea to always have a pc-flavour available. This pc-flavour would have software preinstalled and settings preconfigured that are very handy for pc's, but not for touchscreen environments.

ExSuSEusr
May 24th, 2012, 01:22 AM
Sometimes it just feels like simple things in Ubuntu are just really difficult to do, particularly for the average joe.

This is true and it is what hurts Linux as a whole in the grand scheme.

Even with Wine you can't just pop in a Rosetta Stone CD, install, and use. You have to go in and tweak this and tweak that. And, getting some games to work is even worse. But, that's not really the fault of Linux as much as it is the company's who produce the product. Then again you can't really blame a for-profit company for not producing a Linux versus of their product considering the OS only holds what.... 2% of the market?

If the user is the type who only uses the computer for basic operations like the occasional text editor, surfing the web, checking email - so on - then a fresh install of Ubuntu, Mint, et al if perfectly fine without having to do any tweaking... But, as people become more and more reliant of their computers - 'surfing the web' becomes only a small part of the picture.

zombifier25
May 25th, 2012, 04:20 PM
This is true and it is what hurts Linux as a whole in the grand scheme.

Even with Wine you can't just pop in a Rosetta Stone CD, install, and use. You have to go in and tweak this and tweak that. And, getting some games to work is even worse. But, that's not really the fault of Linux as much as it is the company's who produce the product. Then again you can't really blame a for-profit company for not producing a Linux versus of their product considering the OS only holds what.... 2% of the market?

If the user is the type who only uses the computer for basic operations like the occasional text editor, surfing the web, checking email - so on - then a fresh install of Ubuntu, Mint, et al if perfectly fine without having to do any tweaking... But, as people become more and more reliant of their computers - 'surfing the web' becomes only a small part of the picture.

The Wine part of your post has nothing to do with this topic, and the ease of use of Linux as a whole. As much as I love Wine, Wine isn't - and never will be - viable in the long term. Installing Windows apps on Linux is NOT what Linux users are supposed to do, so that's why it's so difficult. As for other tasks, please name a task that does not involve diving really deep into the system that can't be done by a GUI in Ubuntu.

MisterGaribaldi
May 25th, 2012, 08:28 PM
I view this entire argument as rather suspicious and, quite possibly, irrational.

Anyone familiar with Eric S. Raymond's seminal "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" will likely recognize the inherent fallacy of debating "direction" in connection with the F/OSS community and it's greatest single product, Linux. Given that Ubuntu is simply a part of Linux, one can only judge the rightness or wrongness of it's own "direction" in reference to those who are generating it, and that would be Canonical.

Otherwise, it's like trying to ask "Is development of the aerodynamic shape of a wing going in the right direction or not?" without considering anything specific, like who is doing the development.

If you're talking about the 50,000 foot view of the entire vehicle industry, you really can't say if it's right or wrong. If you're talking about Boeing, then it's right. If you're talking about Honda, then it probably isn't.

So, what specifically is meant by direction? Is "direction" now a code word for something specific?

KiwiNZ
May 25th, 2012, 08:51 PM
If Ubuntu is going in the direction you like then it is going in the right direction. If it is not then use a Distribution that is, simple really.

trivialpackets
May 25th, 2012, 09:11 PM
Personally, I'm a big fan of the direction that ubuntu is going. I think that the only complaint I could make is about the ability to customize things like a theme. By this, what is it the 3rd iteration of unity as a release, it would seem that ubuntu should have theme changing/installation built in.

To me, it's not a deal breaker as there are utilities I can install to do so, but my gut says it should have been in place by the LTS release. With that being said, I love the Unity interface and don't find it to be awkward at all, but as with most things, it's my preference.

Chiel92
May 25th, 2012, 09:16 PM
I view this entire argument as rather suspicious and, quite possibly, irrational.

Anyone familiar with Eric S. Raymond's seminal "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" will likely recognize the inherent fallacy of debating "direction" in connection with the F/OSS community and it's greatest single product, Linux. Given that Ubuntu is simply a part of Linux, one can only judge the rightness or wrongness of it's own "direction" in reference to those who are generating it, and that would be Canonical.

Otherwise, it's like trying to ask "Is development of the aerodynamic shape of a wing going in the right direction or not?" without considering anything specific, like who is doing the development.

If you're talking about the 50,000 foot view of the entire vehicle industry, you really can't say if it's right or wrong. If you're talking about Boeing, then it's right. If you're talking about Honda, then it probably isn't.

So, what specifically is meant by direction? Is "direction" now a code word for something specific?

Ubuntu develops fast. That's great.
But it just seems that Ubuntu is sometimes developing too fast or so. My experience is that there are getting bugs and other annoyances into Ubuntu (as explained earlier in this thread). This way Ubuntu is moving towards M$/windows (from my point of view).

Logically the question follows: is that a good direction?
(Or, if you don't agree with my experience; is this the way Ubuntu intends to go?)

I wasn't asking for "the true answer", merely for opinion.

ExSuSEusr
May 27th, 2012, 05:19 PM
Ubuntu is going to be fine and here's why:

We all know that one issue of concern is that the distributions are being release a little too quickly, but that's neither here nor there - the point of this is to express why I think Ubuntu is going to be just fine. So, with that said - here are the reasons.

Ubuntu Users

Let's remember that Ubuntu is Ubuntu. It's not Slackware or Linux from Scratch it has been designed for the average computer user - not the hard core Linux user who welcomes the challenge of compiling their own kernels. The fact is the average Ubuntu is, generally speaking, a bit more tech savvy than the average Windows user. Please note that I said generally speaking - not to imply that statement across the board.

But, even with that said - let's be honest. While the average Ubuntu user may a bit more tech savvy or tech curious than the average Windows user the chances are good that the don't know what kernel version is running under the hood of their Ubuntu install. There is probably a good chance a lot of them don't know the difference between CUPS and Samba. That's not an insult, it's just a simple observation. Again, as I stated before Ubuntu is not Slackware. It isn't meant for the hard-core-let-me-configure-my-own-kernel-from-scratch user.

Ubuntu has made Linux easier for the average user. It has taken a lot of the work out of getting a system up and running without many issues. The average user isn't interested in the challenge of setting up their network adapter through the terminal, or spend hours or even days trying to get their video card to perform as it was designed. With Ubuntu they don't have to - it works well out of the box - in most cases.

When it comes to delivering a stable and installable OS that works out-of-the-box Ubuntu delivers quite nicely.

When it comes to delivering an OS designed to cater to the average user - who doesn't have the technical skills of a professional programmer or network administrator - Ubuntu delivers quite nicely.

Death of the Desktop

Times are changing and the future of the clunky desktop is doomed. I travel and interact with a lot of business, of all different flavors, and the trend I see is that all of them have either already switched to laptops, are in the process of switching to laptops, or planning to switch. The home users are also gravitating to laptops now in increasing numbers. I truly believe the desktop is going the way of the home phone. It's only a matter of time before you won't be able to find them at Best Buy.

Laptops are growing in power and capacity. At present there are certain benefits that a desktop still offers, but the gap is decreasing and quickly. With laptops and now tablets - the pressure, I believe, is too great for the desktop to keep up.

Out of curiosity I went to Newegg and priced a new box (components needed to build) and compared the cost to that of a laptop. I looked for power and size. I found that a system (desktop) that was capable of running any game out there was only about $150 dollars cheaper than high end gaming laptop (also capable of running any game out there). Both with comparable memory and storage. The difference? I can take the laptop anywhere and use it anywhere. With the desktop I am chained to a desk.

Ubuntu is well suited for laptops. I busted out a couple of older laptops I had in storage and put Ubuntu on them. Installed without a hitch - no problems at all. Ubuntu delivers when it comes to realizing the future of home and office computing. It seems highly compatible with laptops and netbooks.

Unity

Everyone hates Unity and complains that it "sucks." Actually, the Unity type environment is the wave of the future. ESPECIALLY with Gen Y'ers who are accustoms to touch screen smart phones and tablets. Why not design a desktop environment that fits the trends of now and the future?

Unity isn't bad - and despite the complaints it is actually easier to navigate than the older tradition menu button. I hit one key, type a couple of letters (you don't have to type out the full name of the program) and there it is. And, yes Unity is customizable. There are plenty of how-to's on the web.

Despite that - you don't have to use it.


sudo add-apt-repository ppa:gwendal-lebihan-dev/cinnamon-stable
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install cinnamonThat's just an example of one alternative "cinnamon." It took me 15 seconds with Google to find it.

Canonical aren't the only one's who see where the future of the desktop environment is going. Consider Gnome 3. There's something to it.

My way or the Highway

A lot of people complain that Canonical doesn't listen to the community - and maybe in some regards they don't. But, when you have 500,000 users all screaming for 500,000 different things - someone has to be the final say. I think thus far they are making good choices other than releasing a new distro every six months. It's still free. It's still customizable. It's still stable. It's still better than Windows.... It's still Linux.

I think the creators of Ubuntu are taking the right steps by appropriately addressing their target users, by looking ahead to what the desktop environment is eventually going to be, by producing an OS with the laptop computer in mind...

Just my opinion.

Chiel92
May 27th, 2012, 09:47 PM
Thanks ExSuSEusr, great post!

KiwiNZ
May 27th, 2012, 09:56 PM
Death of the Desktop

Times are changing and the future of the clunky desktop is doomed. I travel and interact with a lot of business, of all different flavors, and the trend I see is that all of them have either already switched to laptops, are in the process of switching to laptops, or planning to switch. The home users are also gravitating to laptops now in increasing numbers. I truly believe the desktop is going the way of the home phone. It's only a matter of time before you won't be able to find them at Best Buy.

Laptops are growing in power and capacity. At present there are certain benefits that a desktop still offers, but the gap is decreasing and quickly. With laptops and now tablets - the pressure, I believe, is too great for the desktop to keep up.

Out of curiosity I went to Newegg and priced a new box (components needed to build) and compared the cost to that of a laptop. I looked for power and size. I found that a system (desktop) that was capable of running any game out there was only about $150 dollars cheaper than high end gaming laptop (also capable of running any game out there). Both with comparable memory and storage. The difference? I can take the laptop anywhere and use it anywhere. With the desktop I am chained to a desk.

Ubuntu is well suited for laptops. I busted out a couple of older laptops I had in storage and put Ubuntu on them. Installed without a hitch - no problems at all. Ubuntu delivers when it comes to realizing the future of home and office computing. It seems highly compatible with laptops and netbooks.




I don't believe the Death of the Desktop Machine will occur anytime soon. There will be a significant reduction in sales volume especially in the consumer "High Street" stores.

However, there still remains many task that can really only be best done on the Desktop platform. There has been many big advances in mobile computing they they still on the whole provide a mobile computing extension.

That said there are many users for which the style of their computer needs are such the Notebook and even the Tablet is all they need, and some just a Smartphone will suffice.

As for Unity and Unity like DE's, things evolve, if one does not adapt one stagnates, I can still remember the whole GUI debate, the Unity debate gives me a keen sense of Deja Vu.

ExSuSEusr
May 28th, 2012, 05:36 AM
Well sure at present there are still some tasks that desktops still perform better than a laptop - I can't dispute that. But, I think in the future the only way you're going to be able to "have" a desktop system is to build it.

The only people I know who have them now are a couple of friends who use a box as a media center for their home - and another friend who's a serious gamer. Everyone else has laptops.

Go into any electronics store and look at the rows and rows of laptops - then off to the side you'll a small section for the desktop systems.

Not saying that desktop systems are useless or that they are going to be gone tomorrow - My point was that Ubuntu ala Canonical is going in the right direction by making this OS - in what seems to ME - a lot more laptop friendly than desktop. Maybe my opinion is too clouded by own personal experiences - but it just seems to me that they are doing a good job of making this OS install and run smoothly on laptops. On desktops? I've had nothing but trouble trying to get it work as smoothly as it does on a laptop.

I see desktop systems in the same place as DVD's are now. Remember when you'd go into Best Buy and you'd have rows and rows of DVD's? Now? It's rows and rows of Blu Rays and a small section of traditional DVDs. To me - the desktop system is in the same place. Sure, some people still use 'em. But, like the technology with movie media delivery - it's evolved and it's only a matter of time before they're gone. Maybe not tomorrow, or next year, or even in the next few years - but in our lifetime? Absolutely.

I agree with everything else you said - today's computer users do the following:

- Play games.
- Watch videos.
- Post their status updates.
- Check email.
- Work (career related material).
- Pay bills / Manage their budget.
- Edit photographs.
- Maybe a little MS Office / Open Office work here and there.
- More video watching.
- Other misc. programs like Rosetta Stone, et al.

A lot of people have commented that most people just use their computer to check email, facebook, and Youtube. I don't believe that. The "computer" has become an integral part of our lives. There is no escape.

In the list above I didn't even mention loading media on their MP3 players, or setting up home entertainment systems. The list could go on.

Ubuntu - and to be fair - so does Mint - so does Fedora - so do a lot of other distros (depending on your level of ability) allow to do everything I listed above without costing you a single penny. Why is Ubuntu going in the right direction? As I said before - they allow the average user to do all those things without having to master the terminal.

I agree with you on Unity as well. I like Unity. I hated it at first, probably for the same reasons a lot of other people hated it. It was new. But, after learning it? It IS faster than the old worn out, traditional start button. Just for fun I conducted a little experiment. I logged into my Mint install (into Cinnamon) and timed how long it took to navigate to Banshee through the menu button. 6 Seconds. Then I logged into my Ubuntu install and did the same. 3 Seconds. Half the time. Half the time to hit the super key, type a B, and hit enter.

Yet, people complain... I won't lie... I was one of them too at first. As I stated in my write up - a lot of Gen X'ers and most of the Gen Y'ers are used to touch screen smart phones. It only makes sense to develop an interface that reflects what they're accustomed to.

Canonical isn't the only player looking ahead. You think it's a coincidence that Gnome 3 is similar. I don't who borrowed from who, or whatever. They see it and they're responding.

And, no I don't work for Canonical. I just realized how good we as Ubuntu users have it - and most don't realize it. Sure, it's not perfect - but what ever is?

A lot of folks complain about this or that - me too - I complained as well - but in the end - we have been GIVEN a stable and pretty damn cool OS - for free. We have access to software that commercially would cost us hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars - for free. No, it's not perfect, no in many cases it's not as good as the commercial product (ala Photoshop), but it is what it is. The folks who are developing these programs aren't getting a dime for their efforts - yet people want to sit there and complain because it doesn't do this or that. If it's so bad - why aren't THEY learning python and contributing something?

I am sure in the end Canonical has a monetary motive... why wouldn't they? Money is what makes the world go round and round. And, programmers gotta eat too.

The beauty of Ubuntu, of Linux - is that you always have a choice. Don't like Ubuntu anymore, don't like Unity anymore? Fine, you can go back to Microsoft and spend your hard earned money on a product full of security holes that devours your systems resources, and end up paying for everything you install. Or, you can educate yourself in python and other languages and download Linux from Scratch and have at it.

If it wasn't for Ubuntu I honestly do not believe Linux as a whole would be growing in popularity, nor would be used on laptops straight from the factory. Sure, it might be sold for servers - but for the home? You can thank Ubuntu for that.

I say cut Canon some slack and lay off Unity - at the very least give it a fair chance - customize it a bit and if you just can't get past it - install Cinnamon, etc....