Why all the H8 for Ubuntu Unity?

I just went to the Unity site and I must say Unity looks very cool and kudos to Canonical for branching out to bring in more users.

So the question is why all the hate for Unity? I understand those that have been around Linux for 10+ years might think Unity is a letdown but in order to attract more Windows users they need to make Linux easy to use i.e. having 95% of everything ready to go. I will definitely try out Unity.

The other question is does anyone know if Linux Mint will go that route as well?

 

That's pretty much a description of Mint imo.

They won't.
According to Mint dev. Clem; "...we're aiming at using Gnome without Gnome Shell "; link

 

The reason I personally don't like Unity, is the fact that Canonical seems to be branching out on it's own and starting to include their own proprietary software. I don't like that. It's already bad enough (IMHO) that Ubuntu ties you in to Ubuntu One, wodim/genisoimage (which I loath), and their online music store. To be honest, it kind of seems to me they are becoming the Microsoft of the open source world. I really, really dislike that. For me anyway 10.04 may be the last version of Ubuntu I will use. I just want a vanilla linux distro with Gnome, or KDE, or Xfce. Not all this bundled crap. So even though these are my opinions, that's why I don't like Unity or Canonical.

 

I just installed, Ubuntu 10.10 which I understand uses the Gnome UI. Looked at pictures of the Unity Interface of Ubuntu 10.10 netbook edition... Looks a little like Mac OSX to me.

 

Fair enough but from another perspective what I see they are trying to do is compete on a similar level with MS and Apple by offering a serious/cool alternative. Linux even to this day is considered as anti-MS and anti-Apple whether we like to admit it or not.

Canonical to there credit is trying to break away from the mentality that Linux users prefer Linux because they don't want to pay MS or Apple for their OS. Here Canonical is trying to say our OS is cool, fresh, internet ready and you'll enjoy it more than the others. At least that's how I see it from a noobs perspective.

 

Everyone pretty much pays for windows or mac os x with the purchase of their notebook, unless you buy barebones/whitebox or a preloaded Linux computer. I think the anti- is more about freedom than freebies.

 

Precisely! That's exactly how I feel about it.

 

Why would any Linuxer want to attract more Windows users?

That point of view is very centered towards Ubuntu.

Most Linux users I know are just fine with Windows users using Windows and Mac users using MacOS.
I know I'm repeating myself, but please don't confuse Ubuntu with Linux. Ubuntu Bug #1 is not Linux Bug #1. Actually most others don't even care for that.

 

I just want Canonical to expand to help keep pressure on hardware manufacturers to do drivers for the rest of us.

 

I think it looks ugly.

 

Actually I don't mind a Windows Preloaded PC.
You get a BIOS activated OS of any SKU
And the cost of the preload is a fraction of the hardware cost.
Compare that to Mac with a lousy OS X and no Windows.
While on Wintel Machines you can sub OS X with a high quality Linux release like Fedora (Ubuntu is not high quality )*Ducks.

 

i am new to Linux Mint but i'm on the forums a lot and I haven't heard anything like that. I do know the KDE ver should be done for Julia in the next few months and it is designed to be easier for windows users.

Personally I think Linux users have convinced themselves over the years from all the hype that a good GUI based desktop must be evil. That, and they are afraid of change.

If they all used a good GUI desktop, how are they gonna show off their geekness to their friends? They will become - normal.

 

I don't like your assessment as it seems a bit stereotypical. I like a good GUI, I just don't like flashy desktops that focus more on eye candy than usability. I've been using linux off and on since Ubuntu 8.04, does that make me a geek? I don't care about the "cool" factor, I just want something that isn't cluttered, is streamlined and usable.

 

My last line was a joke.

I think it's good for an os to come with lots of eye candy, apps, ways to tweak and configure the desktop environment etc. That way a user can choose to do with it as he wants. The OS will appeal to more users.

But I also think it's important to have the ability to remove unwanted features if you so choose. You may want an Os that is not as eye catchy and more streamlined than your buddy Joe - if you can both make the OS what you want then everybody wins.

From the screenshots I have seen of unity, I do think they are over doing it a tad.. but if i could remove those features or configure them to my liking, I would be happy with it.

Don't forget you can always disable unwanted and unneeded services so some of the eye candy won't run.

 

I agree on your feelings about Unity though. I hope it's removable. :\

 

Of course it is:

Code:

sudo apt-get purge unity

Or just grab the alternate CD, start with a minimalistic installation and add only what you want to use.

That sounds pretty strange.
I know one or two Linux users who don't use X at all, but some of the rest have very individual desktops that fit their needs exactly. This includes colourful desktops with KDE4 or Gnome/Compiz as well as simple windows managers (be it floating or tiling) and everything in between.
A "good GUI" doesn't necessarily mean that it looks like Windows or Mac OS, it's something different for every user.

I care a lot about the preloaded OS. I wouldn't have bought my M6500 at all if I had to buy it with Windows.
There's nothing wrong with computers being sold with Windows, but it's wrong to force everyone to support a company that doesn't respect free software. I don't expect MS to support free software either, but I don't like that they actively sabotage it.

 

The thing is that Microsoft already took their bulk cuts from the OEM, doesn't matter if 1 guy refuse to buy it, it is already paid for...

 

Of course, but It's not the price I'm concerned of. The problem is, that there's virtually an MS monopoly on the desktop OS market. A monopoly is always bad (unless it's yours). If that's achieved by fair means it's still not good, but then at least one could say that the best player has won the game.
But that's not the case here. MS might be the best choice for most people, which is ok. But there are some people with other needs. And there is no rational reason why these ones should be forced to support MS by buying their products. I do nobody any harm when I buy a computer without Windows.
MS actively sabotages alternatives to keep their market position. That's what I don't want to support. And if somebody wants to force me to do something, I'll resist unless I have no other choice. In the case of purchasing my Dell laptop I had the choice. I wanted to have it, but I didn't really need it. So I was free to play the game until the bitter end. And finally I won.

resistance is not futile!

 

We weren't born to follow
Come on and get up off your knees
When life is a bitter pill to swallow
You gotta hold on to what you believe

 

I actually like unity, it is very usable "out of the box" on a netbook.

 

I'll definitely try Ubuntu 11 when it gets released.

 

Hate? I don't hate it.

Ubuntu just isn't my cup o' beans.

 

What do you run vendetta?

 

Arch Linux

 

Oh ok.

10 char

 

Linux users want people to convert to linux. This is because we want more applications being developed for linux. Such as games, photoshop... etc.

 

I don't know. For me atleast, I would want people to convert because it's a far more stable and secure platform than windows (from my experience anyway). Also a plus is because I hate Microsoft so much, and the more people that switch from windows the better. It would be a real gut shot to Microsoft if they lost millions of users to a free, better alternative.
If the average joe would wake up and finally realize how restrictive windows is (from a licensing perspective + DRM), I think many more would switch.

 

Disclaimer: When I say Linux in this post it refers to the collection of distributions, not the kernel. It might even be better to refer to GNU, but that wouldn't cover everything either. So I'll stick to "Linux".

Applications are developed by developers, not by users. Developers are most likely users and users may become developers, but the majority of Linux users will never even file a bug report. So they won't contribute to Linux at all.
All the efforts to bring more people to Linux will mostly increase this passive group. Active members of the community (which to my understanding at least file bug reports and help to solve them) will find to Linux on their own because their perception is not limited to Windows and Mac OS in the first place.
Sure there's also the group of developers which are companies who write software to earn money. To earn money you need a certain user base and here it makes sense to attract even passive users. But that is not the primary way Linux development works.

The majority of open source software was written by somebody who wanted to have a functionality he couldn't find so far and decided to do it on his own. Because he's a nice guy he then decided to publish it so everyone else can use his work. But this publication was not his primary intention. Open source is written by developers for developers. You don't have to be a developer yourself to use it, but since you usually don't pay the developer you have no legitimation to demand support. Instead, if you have a problem better fix it on your own and return your improvement to the community (including the original author). This is the way open source (and therefore Linux) works.
To be a bit harsh, there's simply no use for passive users in this model. It's still nice for your ego if you know that thousands of people use something you created, but it's not necessary for the model to work. The best way to support Linux is not to attract more passive users but to become an active member yourself. You don't need to be a programmer for that. Artwork, translations and many other things can be adressed without even knowing a single programming language.

 

I agree with all of the above except I have zero hatred for MS, seriously. A comment debguy made made me think that in order for Linux to catch on, experienced users need to get away from the elitist attitude and this is also a problem with Mac users as well, sort of like you're in our world play by our rules. Btw i'm not picking on you debguy, you're always very helpful.

For the average user who wants to tryout Linux they don't care what a distro is. They don't care if Linux might not mean Ubuntu or Mint or what's the difference between gnome or kde or whether it's called Ubuntu 10.4 or 10.04 because they group all of the above with Linux.

And all they want is a seamless trouble free experience with their OS and to run as many programs as possible on that platform like Quicken software etc, etc. In order for that to happen the thinking has to be able to treat the average Linux user with as much hand holding as possible. Mint is an example on how to pull this off. Apple has also learned that with their new customers who rode the coat tails of the ipod, and iphone phenomenon.

Windows on average does most of the leg work for the average user. The OS is designed to be in auto mode for it's users and treats them as if they have zero experience. It appears Ubuntu Unity is trying to go in that direction and for that they should be applauded. I will without hesitation try it out when it's released.

 

No offense taken. ...and... thank you!

The point I tried to make is, that the "average Linux user" (if you go simply by the numbers) is not the target group of the "average Linux developer". If that's elitist I can live with it.
Frankly I'm not far above that active/passive threshold I mentioned. I'm hardly contributing to Linux. I filed very few bug reports for problems I'm hardly even able to describe correctly, I created some packages which are nowhere near to important and I contributed a tiny piece of code to a script that I guess isn't used by more than a dozen people.
All together nobody would even notice the difference in Linux if I hadn't made those contributions.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objections against passive users. In the end I'm one of them. But the attitude that Linux was written for them and therefore should follow their demands is misguided.
MS and Apple give you what you want because you pay them to do exactly that. That relationship doesn't apply to Linux. You may donate to different projects but you do this because you like what they do and want them to go on. That's exactly the opposite approach.
Finally all the tattle about market share, Windows software support and Linux not growing up is just a result of trying to force the developer/user model of proprietary systems on Linux. It just doesn't work.

... what am I doing here? This has all been written before:
Linux is NOT Windows

 

One word: games. Until mainstream games are developed with compatibility for linux, linux will remain the "elitist OS" on a level past mac (since mac is starting to come around with support for mainstream games).

From a pure OS standpoint, linux does it better, cleaner and faster than anything else. But when you add people into the picture, you can see why mac is so popular among clueless people, and why windows is so popular in general; the amount of handholding.

The first time I saw a windows UAC warning, the immediate thought (well, movie/tv quote) in my mind was "I can't let you do that, dave...". People need that for the same reason they need AV software - to cover for their idiocy/weak moments.

 

Nailed it to a T, my thoughts exactly.

 

I would think the goal of every software developer is to become the mainstream OS. The more users of a particular OS, the more software and drivers becomes available for it.

I can easily go from one OS to another because I have been using OpenOffice for the past 8 years, my main use for a PC is as a word processor and web browser... and do not play games (except online poker). But for the rest of the world, more software and hardware compatibility is a must.

Ubuntu with its "App store" looks pretty ready to be a mainstream OS actually. But the base version GUI looks a lot like a Windows 98...

Unity, looks like what people might expect from a modern OS (think iOS or Android). No digging into menus and the like. I am getting so curious about Unity, I am downloading Ubuntu netbook edition and will see how it runs on my laptop.

 

I don't know about that. I think that's just opinion. Computers aren't meant for only games, they are meant for a wide variety of uses, including email, web browsing, social networking, music, movies, and a whole bunch of other things. I think the vast majority of computer users (who are average joes) that know next to nothing about computers are afraid to switch to something they know nothing about. Linux can be more intimidating than windows, and more difficult to set up if your stuff isn't working out of the box.
Since there are already a lot of games for linux (mostly indie stuff, but some commericial games that were ported), I would say that's a very small reason not to switch.
I'd say the vast majority of users just want to be able to check their email, search google, buy stuff online, and keep in touch with family and friends. Perhaps even grab some photos off their camera. You can do ALL of that already with linux.

 

If that's true, why are there still BSD developers at all? Every single one of them knows that BSD will never be the market share leader.
What you say makes sense if you want to earn money with your software. But that simply doesn't apply to most parts of the FOSS scene. Of course companies like Canonical or Red Hat are exceptions from this rule who want to earn money and therefore want a big market share. But these exceptions shouldn't be seen as the standard just because they make the most advertisement.

The problem with statements like these is, that you leave two words out. What you actually mean is this:

I don't agree with that opinion, but there's nothing wrong with that. But you should at least say the whole thing.
I never heard somebody complain about Windows not being able to access a ZFS volume. Everybody accepts that one needs to run BSD or Solaris for that. I think it would only be fair if we wouldn't apply double standards. Therefore demanding Linux to be able to run Windows executables is off the mark. If you want to use Windows software, why don't you just use the original?

This is only valid for people who already know Windows, which means this point of view is biased.
I know some people who haven't used Windows since 3.11 or the early Win95 times. They aren't cracks in any way, just people who know about their system what they need to run it. They have no problems with editing plain text files or running a package manager. But they wouldn't have any idea what you want from them if you asked them to edit the registry, integrate SATA drivers into their installation disc or to defragment their hard disk.
It's all just a question of your point of view.

 

I did not mean that software compatibility with Windows Softwarw is a must. It would mean that popular applications have to be made specifically for Linux too. Most software developers develop for Windows only or Windows and Mac only. I know there are alternatives, but for the general public, alternatives are not a viable option.

I mean... shouldn't Linux want to become like Android (which actually is Linux)?

 

Ok, but then why complain about Linux not being ready for "the average user"? It's the developers of those Windows-only softwares that aren't ready. So one shouldn't complain in a Linux forum but on the software company's homepage.

Then again, tell this the Windows-only software developers, not the Linux comunity.

Why?

 

Anyway, am trying out Ubuntu 10.10 Netbook on a USB. I can see who this could be very useful on a small screen or even a tablet.



I am a bit of confused by the lack of right click functionality in some folders. While it still opens applications in windows, for the most part, it tries to hide this and makes the entire screen the application. Like going through different pages of a book I guess. Kind of like operating a smartphone.



The bar on the right takes up some space, but frees up space on bottom. I do not know if I like it or not. Its different. Will take some getting used too. But isn't the fact that it is different a good thing?

 

Sorry, Debguy... I guess I do not really understand FOSS.

I am just happy that someone built OpenOffice. It is nice to have an option. I would even be willing to pay for it. It's nice not to have to pay for MS Office for my Macbook and even for my Windows PC. If MS lowered their prices (or unbundled the thing), I might even buy MS Office.

The same can be said for Paint.net (not Open Source) and Pinta. I love Shotwell, I wish there was a MacOS or Windows version of that.

Not complaining I really appreciate all the work you guys do. I guess I think in terms of the work ---> reward principal. And the guys who give us this free stuff do deserve some kind of reward for their efforts.

 

I think the vast majority of users do not even like Windows. The got used to it. They would prefer something easier to use. They would prefer an App store rather than downloading stuff from multiple sights and not sure if everything will work. Windows has compatibility, unless your video driver does not play nice with the new game you bought.

People just want to buy a box, find applications that they need, and have everything work. Oh no. I sound like Steve Jobs. But seriously, if Apple ever lowered their prices, I think Windows would be dead.

In the end, they want an appliance, not a computer. Isn't this the principal behind the xBox, PS3 and the iPhone. One standard so everything "just works" (or crap... more Job's rhetoric).

Most people would probably be happy with Ubuntu as is. They just don't know it yet.

 

That's a pity, but there's nothing wrong with that. At least you can admit that you don't really understand the FOSS model. That's more than many other people are capable of.

I can understand that.
And it seems like soon you'll be able to pay for it:
Openoffice.org: Kostenpflichtiges Oracle Open Office 3.3 veröffentlicht - Golem.de (sorry, I haven't found an english article yet)

 

ROFL.

MS Office Home & Student 2010 cost Php4,210 (local) over here. One user two licenses. Microsoft Office for MAC, Home and Student Edition 2011 costs Php9,240 local for a single user license.

Looks like OO is going to cost around US$50 from your link, which is around Php2,200. Still a cheaper alternative.

Maybe I should just make a US$50 donation to LibreOffice.