Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Ubuntu GUI Linux

Are Power Users Too Cool For Ubuntu Unity? 798

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the twm-or-bust dept.
darthcamaro writes "There are a lot of us that really don't like Unity. Ubuntu Founder Mark Shuttleworth defended Unity today, arguing that even 'cool' power users should like usability and ease of use. Then again he admitted that some of us are just too cool even for Unity. 'There is going to be a crowd that is just too cool to use something that looks really slick and there is nothing we can do for them,' Shuttleworth said. 'Fortunately in Ubuntu there are tons of options and lots of choice and ways to skin the cat.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Power Users Too Cool For Ubuntu Unity?

Comments Filter:
  • Unity is too cool for power users?
    • In Soviet Russia, Unity is usable!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Garridan (597129)
      Cool? Hell no. Unity is too 1989 [wikipedia.org] for me. Also, way too buggy to be a no-questions-asked replacement UI in a stable release. I haven't used it since Natty, since it crashed so hard I had to hard-reboot the machine, less than 2 minutes after boot (just clicking around in the menus, looking for a way to configure the system). That experience really made me wonder: do ubuntu devs eat their own dogfood?
      • by somersault (912633) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @04:58AM (#37905010) Homepage Journal

        Shuttleworth is deluded, or trolling., OSX's dock is "slick" and shiny etc, and I like to install clones of it on Gnome. Even Window 7's dock is pretty good too, with its window grouping, previews, and built in progress bars gradually filling up the icon..

        I don't use Unity because it's an arrogant piece of crap that tries to change how I do things, rather than letting me decide. I don't want my menu on the left hand side of my screen. I don't want default, non-configurable shortcut keys that override some of the same key combinations I've used for years. I don't want icons that I can't add or remove from the panel.

        I do like the way Unity streamlines the menus when you go fullscreen. But that's not enough for me to want to keep it. After (if..) they fix the other issues, I may try it again.

        Shuttleworth, I loved Ubuntu until you forced this fucking mess as the default interface. I am now using Mint Debian Edition. Honestly, if I wanted an OS that tries to force me to do things, I'd just go back to OSX. I don't use Linux because I can't afford better, I use it because it can adapt to how I want to use my computer.

        • by wrook (134116)

          My biggest problem with Ubuntu is not Unity per se... I hate it, even after trying to get used to it (but then I'm a focus follows mouse guy and there's just no way for me to adapt to Unity ... good point about the shortcut keys too...) Ordinarily that wouldn't bother me. it's free software after all. What I did with 11.04 was simply deactivate Unity from the Compiz settings manager and run the other software I wanted (namely Docky). Life was still good.

          But I "upgraded" to 11.10 today and after reconf

          • Yep. I had similar problems. I decided that there was no point using alternate sessions either. If I'm just going to be using a vanilla Gnome session, why not go with Debian or any other distro?

            I liked a few of the things that they'd done so far such as the passive notifications system, and I was even looking forward to trying Wayland. And I don't care which side of a window the close button is on, as I've used both sides on different OSes over the years and seem to be able to adjust without thinking about

    • by TheInternetGuy (2006682) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:35PM (#37902652)
      Some of the negative comments on this post, has made me realize that I probably need to clarify my intended meaning somewhat.
      As a power user, the last thing I need is for my desktop to try to be 'cool'.
      It should help me perform the basic tasks of starting and managing running applications. It should be light weight and customizable.
      So by trying to be 'cool' Unity alienates the power user community. And then by taking away the possibilities to customize it makes them install something else.
    • If you're going to use Compiz for your eye-candy at least install the Compiz manager by default

      If you're going to take 3 icons to display 'office' programs at least spare one for a menu.

      I'm writing this from 11.10. Installed Saturday. My biggest complaint is that processes are allowed to take 100% of the CPU and freeze the user.
      • by ArcherB (796902) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @12:34AM (#37903914) Journal

        If you're going to use Compiz for your eye-candy at least install the Compiz manager by default

        If you're going to take 3 icons to display 'office' programs at least spare one for a menu.

        I'm writing this from 11.10. Installed Saturday. My biggest complaint is that processes are allowed to take 100% of the CPU and freeze the user.

        Compiz works great once you get 3D working. Unfortunately, when I try to enable 3D, my system locks. It's not my X-session that locks up, but the entire system locks up. My video card is an HD Radeon 6000 series. Not a bad card, but it's over a year old and fairly popular. I've tried drivers from AMD as well as both drivers supplied with Ubuntu. Nothing works for 3D.

        Now here's the kicker:

        I guess in order to make the system more simple to use they removed the safe graphics mode boot option. Yep! It's gone. My only option is to boot to a root shell, which doesn't mount any drives. Since they quit using the way we used to mount drives, I don't know what drive is what any more. I know that all my drives have long ass character strings, but I don't even know how to get a list of drives any more as "sudo mount" doesn't do shit. I had to look it up on my "other" machine which is a headless workstation running XFCE4. Found how to boot in single mode to remove /ect/X11/xorg.conf and reboot. Unfortunately this alone does not fix the problem. I also have to literally remove the fglrx driver from the system AND remove the xorg.conf file or the system won't boot. Now, remember, kids. this could have all been done in the safe graphics mode of Ubuntu 10.10. I could have also used the graphics mode to research a solution to my problem. Not so in the new, easier to use Ubuntu. I literally used cat to pull up the xorg.log file, looked over my shoulder at one monitor, typing the data in the log on another machine's search box. You know, because this way is easier.

        I have seen Unity, in 2d mode of course, and I don't get it. When I wanted to open a text document I clicked on the applications menu, clicked accessories, and found gedit. Or I could press ALT-F2 and type "gedit". Or I could click on the button in the tool bar where I had dragged the icon earlier. There were any number of ways I could easily put this application wherever I wanted it.

        Now, I have to move the mouse to the let of the screen. Nothing happens. I move it to the top left... nothing. Minimize my current application and move the mouse to the top left of the screen, still nothing. I have to minimize my application, click twice on an empty area of the desktop and then move the mouse to the top left.. The "menu" appears. There is no grouping or organization. It's just a bunch of icons. While it's possible to add and remove applications to this bar, I have not yet figured out how to reorder them. I have the email app I never use, a firefox icon (I use chrome), three open office icons, I'll never use any of those, and a desktop, window looking icon, which for some reason, I only have 1 desktop, so this does nothing. Still, no gedit. So, I click on the first icon and it pulls out a menu. I see porn view, image viewer, Pan and other stuff I was using to look at porn the last time I had X working. Yeah! That's exactly what I want my wife to find when she needs to look up something real quick and doesn't feel like booting her machine. OK, so there are most recently used apps, and a few suggestions from the "App Store", although they call it"Software Center" and I call it advertising, which is something I've never seen in my OS before. Finally, I give up and type gedit in the box and it appears. By now, I forgot why I wanted it in the first place...

        Oh yeah! I wanted to copy the xorg.log file and use it to search the web for answers as to why X doesn't work in 3d. At this point, I give up on 3d, install XFCE4, get it working and configured, then I reboot in to Windows and play Starcraft2 and won't reboot Linux for at least a couple of months, if ever again.

        Thanks Mark! Good job! You've taken a someone who used Linux 90% of the time and turned me into someone who uses Windows 95% of the time.

    • by znerk (1162519) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @01:38AM (#37904258)

      Unity is too cool for power users?

      Or maybe it's not just power users, it's anyone who wants to travel the information superhighway, and Unity feels too much like being stuck in a handicapped parking space.

  • E17 already. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sethstorm (512897) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:05PM (#37902406) Homepage

    It's fine if you don't mind a slightly looser integration of GNOME.

    Plenty of eyecandy to spare.

  • by binarylarry (1338699) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:05PM (#37902408)

    But I fucking hate both GNOME 3 and Unity with a passion.

    Canonical and the GNOME tools fucked up a good thing that was GNOME 2.

    Now get off my lawn.

    • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:18PM (#37902522)

      I've never met anyone who has used Ubuntu and who likes Unity, power user, novice, script kiddie... It is bloated, slow and difficult to use (I suppose unless you're on a tablet/netbook). Gnome 3 still sucks as a UI, but it's at least responsive. The worst feature of unity is changing the "start menu" to that stupid search box. We use UIs because we're not able to remember names and obscure commands and parameters, but now they give us a UI that may as well have been a command prompt with find / -name "$1" built in to it.

      Netbooks or tablets MAY take over one day, I personally don't think so, but for now if it's not iPad it's irrelevant, and if you're using Ubuntu you're not using an iPad. Stop dicking around, learn from Microsoft and the benighted ribbon interface.

      • by Brad1138 (590148)

        We use UIs because we're not able to remember names and obscure commands and parameters

        Exactly, I may have found/installed an obscure program I may use twice a year at best. I can't always remember what it is called. With no easy way to find it, I'll end up with multiple installed programs I forgot I had cluttering up my machine. When I do remember the program, I may not be able to find it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Yup. Microsoft's ribbon and Ubuntu's Unity are like those lame attempts of annoying high-school kids trying to compensate for their lack of personalities by dressing and behaving outrageously annoyingly ("Look how different we are, man! You're just a conformist square!").

        There's a reason why Just Works(tm) just works. Operation, not appearance, is the better indicator of personality.
      • I've never met anyone who has used Ubuntu and who likes Unity, power user, novice, script kiddie...

        My wife, a non-technical person, likes Unity, so at least there's one. But I (power user) am with you and the rest of the vocal supermajority that hates it.

      • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Monday October 31, 2011 @10:08PM (#37902924) Homepage

        And some who who tried the early unity I have got to say that it is horrible for small screens.
        The normal Ubuntu interface slightly customized though is near perfect and way better then Windows.

    • Canonical and the GNOME tools fucked up a good thing that was GNOME 2

      I believe its still there.

    • Really, man. I saw it on a palmtop I did up for my wife and said, WTF??? Yeah, Unity is fine if you're a run of the mill user and for those guys who want all that flashy, spinny, whirly-twirly pretty desktop crap, but I simply haven't the time to figure out all over again yet another major change to my desktop. It seems like every time I turn around, some dope over at some distro maker''s shop gets all spun up about some new desktop, and then I have to find a new distro to get away from it. I'm on Mint now.

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:07PM (#37902420)

    >> 'cool' power users should like usability and ease of use

    I do. Thats why I avoid Unity.

    Unity gets in the way. It takes way to many actions to find and launch something compared to gnome 2.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I love unity and the slick interface it provides. Unfortunately, it doesn't love me. I want the launcher at the bottom. Can't figure out how to do this. It runs slower than KDE 4 on my netbook and I could have sworn it was a netbook interface. I can't justify the lost productivity as I wait for things to load or while I fruitlessly hunt for my stuff at the bottom of the screen. In my opinion it should run faster since there is less to it. Fundamentally, I switched to Debian and realized that I'd forgotten w

    • by mldi (1598123) on Monday October 31, 2011 @10:50PM (#37903334)
      You are exactly right. Why the hell would I want to use Unity which often requires me to move my hands between my keyboard and mouse, click extra times to do the same action, or look for another one of those hidden features that were implemented in order to save 10px of space on my 1980x1200 resolution screen.

      I like seeing exactly what windows I have open and ungrouped. I like using my horizontal space to display these things. I like not having my file menu potentially hundreds of pixels away when I could normally access it a very short distance away. I liked dedicating launcher menus on a separate bar from my task bar. I like visible scroll bars and I most definitely like having dedicated buttons visible at all times just one click away from me minimizing and maximizing my windows. In my opinion, Beryl/Compiz/Fusion alone offered enough eye-candy mixed with the right options to enhance my productivity while making the experience pretty.

      There are very good reasons why I preferred the old Gnome 2.x desktop UI over OSX, KDE, Windows, or anything like that.

      Here's a tip Shuttleworth: Don't be a Jobs. Don't think that just because we don't agree with you 100% that we're enemies or a bunch of whiners who are whining for no good reason. You have many users who know what they want, who know what they like, and who know the reasons why. Don't insult us by acting like The King of Hipster Club.
  • I think the unity interface looks kinda cool, and the first thought I had was that it would be neat on a tablet. However, it does nothing for usability on my desktop. Especially when programming via multiple terminal sessions. Which, is the only time that I really ever use linux. Thanks for judging me, one of Ubuntu's previous fans, asshole.
  • It's not about being "too cool". It's about being sick of a crappy, poorly thought out interface that caters to users that want everything done for them. Power users and people that know what they're doing typically don't want magic - they want to know what's happening on their system and to not have an interface like Unity shoved down their throat.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm a developer and I love "magic" in a home computer. The problem is that Unity's "magic" is more like a magician making you do all the work blindfolded, and then declaring, "How did it happen? Must be magic!"

  • -1 To Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquidweaver (1988660) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:09PM (#37902440)
    Is it possible to mod the base post down as flamebait?
  • I tried Unity. It cut my productivity, so I switched to Xubuntu. Now I like it better than I did the original Ubuntu Classic.

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      i've used xubuntu all along as i used linux to "refurbish" a dated laptop with a damaged windows xp recovery partition (i have since found the oem restore cd but i have grown accustomed to my wifi working when i switch it on and not having to uninstall and reinstall drivers from time to time to convince it to connect, i have also grown far too accustomed to repositories instead of having to hope the website i found for a particular freeware app is the real website and not a clone or domain squatter deliveri
    • by Brad1138 (590148)
      I switched to Mint and like it better than Ubuntu, mainly because a number of the programs I had to install after every Ubuntu install are already installed. That and it reminds me of 10.04 or 10.10, it just works well. Don't know what I'll do when Mint 12 comes out with Gnome 3...
      • by mattcsn (1592281)

        I've just installed 11.10 on an older pentium D desktop (basically my distro-testing machine), and after finding Unity to be unusable I installed the standard Gnome 3 shell. It's definitely inspired by fisher-price baby's-first-tablet UIs, but at least it's responsive and stable and doesn't make running programs inaccessible. It's worth giving Gnome 3 a try for a day or so.

      • When Mint 12 comes out all you'll do is make a choice [linuxmint.com]. The reason I'm using Mint right now is that they're taking time with the transition, so I'll be able to move to Gnome 3 (or not) when I think it's ready.

        Linux Mint 12 “Lisa” will be released in November this year with continued support for Gnome 2 but also with the introduction of Gnome 3. ... Of course, we’re starting from scratch and this process will take time and span across multiple releases. Until then, it’s important we continue to support the traditional Gnome 2 desktop.

  • by brainchill (611679) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:12PM (#37902478)
    The unity interface turns every computer into a netbook interface that just isn't appropriate for regular computer use or users ....
    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      All other problems aside, it also makes the UI perform like it's on a netbook.
      • by 0123456 (636235)

        All other problems aside, it also makes the UI perform like it's on a netbook.

        Unity actually works OK on a netbook; it just sucks for doing real work on a real screen. And the 'global menu' sucks everywhere unless you always run your windows at full screen size.

  • ... Bantu for "I don't know how to configure Debian".

    • by TavoX (962277)
      I'd say that Debian is just as easy to configure nowadays due to Ubuntu's bloat. And It's maybe easier if you want to customize things.
  • I upgraded from Ubuntu 10.04 to 11.10 and was very unhappy with Unity. Fortunately I found out about Lubuntu, which is "a variant of Ubuntu that is lighter, less resource hungry and more energy-efficient by using lightweight applications and LXDE, The Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment, as its default GUI." It is wonderful, fast and efficient! Get it here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu#Get_Lubuntu [ubuntu.com]
    • Why do you people try so hard to find an Ubuntu-of-the-month? By requiring a *buntu you're demanding that people try to hybridize a sickly mutt in hopes of cashing in on the next designer breed of Linux distribution. Wouldn't it be better to start with pedigreed stock such as Debian rather than its confused, unloved spawn?

  • by tbird81 (946205) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:18PM (#37902520)

    That's the exact problem!

    Unity is not usable. It is not easy to use or intuitive.

    Right-clicking should allow us to alter things. Things should be consistent. We don't need have the screen taken up with giant buttons - that doesn't help and it's not easy to use! It's just annoying.

  • How old are you??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by syousef (465911) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:22PM (#37902536) Journal

    Did I blink and end up back in primary school? Does anyone who refuses to use Ubuntu have cooties too?

    And how ridiculous is it to say geeks are "too cool" to use a product. What are you smoking!?!? Geeks love new things that function well and allow them to do cool things. They do not shun these things based on idiotic social protocol.

    So take your poorly written crippled little interface and put it back in a dark cupboard, or if you're out of room shove it somewhere the sun don't shine!

    I am sick and tired of free software developers thinking that because their product is free (in both senses) they can dictate what I do or do not like, or what features I do or do not want. If you take a feature away, either give me a way to re-enable it or suffer my ire. Firefox devs, Google, Ubuntu...that means you. Apple, Microsoft, you're not exempt because I pay for your product.

    • And how ridiculous is it to say geeks are "too cool" to use a product. What are you smoking!?!? Geeks love new things that function well and allow them to do cool things. They do not shun these things based on idiotic social protocol.

      You must be new here.

    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @12:48AM (#37904018)

      And how ridiculous is it to say geeks are "too cool" to use a product. What are you smoking!?!? Geeks love new things that function well and allow them to do cool things. They do not shun these things based on idiotic social protocol.

      Geeks claim to be all about change and innovation but in all honesty in many ways they're as set in their ways as anyone else.

      According to Geeks the window manager was perfected by Microsoft in Windows 95 and everything else has been an abomination.

      They don't care what the statistics or the user testing show... they know they're right. After all it's been that way since 1994.

      Someone below mentioned they disable Aero in order to avoid the window manager using system resources... even though it probably uses 1MB of RAM of their 8,000 MB system. There are legions of geeky cargo cults who still live in 1998 and practice superstitious rituals to make their computers go faster.

      I'm just as guilty as the next guy. The reason we geeks never evolve is because we aren't willing to buy-in to the notion that there's a better way. We test the waters but still hold onto bad workflows. If you try to do it the old-way with the new system you won't get anywhere. It's like whipping your computer to make it go faster. You have to adapt to the new ways. If you try to do things the old way then it often is clunky and slow.

      We believe that since we've used the system for 20+ years we know the best way to do something we've done forever. But sometimes the old way kind of works but in all honesty they've changed the entire philosophy of how to do something.

      I can't count how many times I've tried to work the same way I've worked in old software in a competitor's package. It was horrible! Why? Because I was *doing it wrong*. Once I learned how the new software worked and stopped trying to cram my square plug approach through a round hole I realized that the new system was actually a lot faster when you worked with its philosophy.

      • by syousef (465911)

        According to Geeks the window manager was perfected by Microsoft in Windows 95 and everything else has been an abomination.

        According to which geeks exactly? I've been bitching about the file manager for a couple of decades. They still don't have it right in Windows 7. Estimates on file copying are all over the place. They finally have a resume on temporary error (file open etc) but it's not very flexible and you still get caught in situations where you have to abort a file copy, potentially undo, and start over.

        There are legions of geeky cargo cults who still live in 1998 and practice superstitious rituals to make their computers go faster.

        I'm just as guilty as the next guy.

        Frankly I think you're projecting.

        It's like whipping your computer to make it go faster.

        Wiping a computer almost always does make it "go faster", for a long list of reasons

  • by Brad1138 (590148) <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:27PM (#37902574)
    I don't get why there is this push away from the program menu we have been using for over 15 years. I still like it. Just because it has been around a while doesn't mean it needs to be replaced. I switched from Ubuntu after 5 years to Mint to get away from Unity, now Mint is going to Gnome 3. I'll try that, but if it is too much like Unity, I'll probably go to Xubuntu.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      a hierarchical categorization of the tools and applications installed on your system is far too 'technical' and 'bookish'.

      Just tell your computer how you 'feel' and let it guide you to apps it devines to be appropriate.

    • by QuasiEvil (74356)

      Likewise - I don't understand why the current trend is to throw away time-tested interface metaphors for something completely different that - as best I can tell - nobody likes.

    • I don't get why there is this push away from the program menu we have been using for over 15 years.

      Apple. If Apple does it, everyone thinks it must be the right thing to do.

      Just because it has been around a while doesn't mean it needs to be replaced.

      How about technical reasons? Linear menus are terrible in terms of how people learn motions. Radial menus have always been superior, but it is hard to make radial menus work when you have dozens or even hundreds of items to choose from. Too bad Unity doesn't use a radial menu either (perhaps combined with some search features to reduce the number of options).

      • by itsdapead (734413)

        I don't get why there is this push away from the program menu we have been using for over 15 years.

        Apple. If Apple does it, everyone thinks it must be the right thing to do.

        The problem is, people don't seem to understand why Apple does things.

        On a Mac, a well-behaved application appears in Finder as a single, self-contained, double-click-to-run file (actually a directory, but that is disguised). You browse Applications in Finder just like any other file. You are free to re-arrange your Applications folder into subfolders as you see fit. You add desktop shortcuts, dock items just like you would for regular files. This is a major conceptual difference between Mac and both Lin

    • I don't get why there is this push away from the program menu we have been using for over 15 years

      That's what Shuttleworth is apparently missing. When good changes come, we do tend to love them. When we got the start menu in 95, I don't think anyone really wanted to go back to program manager (barring a few issues with programs not being imported during upgrade). It was a wholly better way of doing things, and I couldn't wait until someone managed to hack it in to X. While we had to change our habits, I do

    • by Solandri (704621) on Monday October 31, 2011 @10:09PM (#37902940)

      I don't get why there is this push away from the program menu we have been using for over 15 years.

      It's pretty simple. Marketing does a survey, finds out that 99% of button-presses on a TV remote are channel up/do, volume up/down, and guide.

      Correct response: Enlarge those three buttons, move them into the easiest to reach area of the remote.
      Braindead response: Make those three buttons the entire front of the remote. Hide all other buttons behind a panel you have to remove with a screwdriver to access.

  • I like usabiity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:29PM (#37902586) Homepage

    I like usability, but usability doesn't just mean that a dumb user can figure it out, it also means that it gets the job done with the least amount of effort and Unity just doesn't cut it right now. One thing for example really nice in Gnome2 was that i could have multiple panels, spread across different monitors and filled with the apps needed for that monitor. With Unity I can't even move the dock thing, let alone place it on a monitor of my choice. Also starting an app: Yeah, for big applications, having the icon click be turned into a 'switch to already running app' is great, however for terminals is awkward as hell and makes no conceptual sense. That's simply not how you use a terminal and the dock doesn't provide any proper way to change that behavior. Menu on-top, same issue, great when you have a small screen, awful and confusing on a big screen one, especially when an app spawns multiple windows.

    There are also very basic issues with Unity, such as: Does it even work? Well, right now with my ATI drivers, no it doesn't. It produces counterless ugly graphic glitches and problems that make it unusable.

    I mean in essence I don't even get why Unity exists. Desktop environments are not that complicated, you have buttons to click on stuff and they make windows open, hardly anything has changed with that in 20 years. The thing that makes the environment more usable lies in making it consistent and bug free. Throwing what we have and starting a new doesn't make it better, it just makes it different for being different sake.

    Wanna make application installation easier? Don't twiggle with the start menu, fix dpkg and allow me to easily install software from third party sources across distributions and allow me to install multiple versions of the same app.

  • by FictionPimp (712802) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:31PM (#37902606) Homepage
    I run about 100 linux servers. Currently they are ubuntu servers and are unsupported. We are about to do a refresh and my boss asked me to get official support. I looked at ubuntu support, but honestly the direction ubuntu is going on their desktop and the way their mouthpieces act has caused my team and I to not want to risk staying with ubuntu. We are looking at Redhat.

    I guess we are too cool to give them money.
  • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:31PM (#37902608) Homepage Journal
    Because if we were happy to have someone else dictate to us how we should use our systems, we'd have stuck with Windows or OSX. The UNIX world hasn't even managed to settle on a single window manager, much less a desktop environment that no one but the guy who created it seems to like.
  • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@noSPaM.hotmail.com> on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:33PM (#37902628) Homepage

    Mr. Shuttleworth should stop for a moment and think: "What if they are right? What if Unity is a poor design? What if putting a smartphone-ish interface on a desktop computer is a damn stupid idea?"

  • Once and for all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RenHoek (101570) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:34PM (#37902640) Homepage

    The Ubuntu people better read this thread because I'm only going to say it once more..

    It's a goddamn OPERATING SYSTEM!

    People use it to start and control applications. It's not supposed to be shiny, wobbly and sparkly. I still set Windows7 to Classic Mode because I don't want it to use up resources for bullshit and the menus are set up sane in this mode. The only thing I somewhat liked about Unity is that you have more screen real-estate, but last time I used it, it was messing up even something as simply as Alt-Tab.

    Mark Shuttleworth may classify me as 'too cool' and beyond hope of ever being pleased. But the fact is, I'm a pretty laid back user. The only thing I'm not is a 14 year old girl who wants everything to be pretty or a Mac user who values looks over functionality.

    And what the hell is it with things needing to be changed for change sake? I recall most of my friends rebuilding their webpage from the ground up every 6 months, just so that it would be new. It seems Ubuntu is suffering from the same problem. Gnome2 was just fine, and if there was something wrong with it, they should've just fixed it instead of throwing it out the window. I still have to see any real advantage of Unity over Gnome2. All I encounter is a ton of things that don't work. And even if you make the argument that they are only small things, Unity is killing the user experience by a thousand cuts.

    • "And what the hell is it with things needing to be changed for change sake? I recall most of my friends rebuilding their webpage from the ground up every 6 months, just so that it would be new."

      I don't know about your friends but I often wonder how much of it has to do with job security. If you build a great widget that works well and people love, what are you going to do when you run out of new customers? Recycle the old ones! The good companies innovate, come out with new features that makes them WANT to

  • Right... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cshark (673578)
    I'm too cool for an os interface that sucks my productivity, limits my control over a system I own, that doesn't allow me to multi task, that changes my security settings because I'm too stupid to know what I want to do to my system. Go fuck yourself Mark Shuttleworth. The power users have been the only thing that keeps your self important little distro in business over the last decade. You sniveling piece of human garbage. It's one thing to change your user interface. It's another to piss on the only peopl
  • by dskoll (99328) on Monday October 31, 2011 @09:40PM (#37902690)

    To all those who make snide remarks about grumpy old UNIX geeks not wanting to change, I issue a challenge: Switch to a Dvorak keyboard for a week.

    After all, the Dvorak keyboard is more efficient and more usable than the QWERTY one (at least according to Dvorak proponents.)

    Oh, and if you are already using a Dvorak keyboard, you're obviously far too cool for Unity.

  • by bmo (77928)

    After hiding out in Gnome 2.3 while the KDE folks got their shit together, I tried KDE 4.7.2 in Ubuntu.

    I'm staying. It's spectacular. It's really, really nice.

    While I didn't find Unity bad, I found KDE so much better.

    --
    BMO

  • I've used Linux since 1995, Debian since 1998 and Ubuntu since mid 2004, when the first 4.10 test release came out. Ubuntu Unity and Gnome 3 may be perfectly useful for computer newbies, who have no prior experience with any OS, but they are both very annoying for experienced computer users and unfortunately Windows 8 looks to be more of the same. So I switched to Xubuntu apparently the only decent option left, and I seem to be in good company there with Linus having switched to Xfce as well. I used to work

  • The problem is not that the interface is accessible to people with no training and therefore not 'exclusive' enough for power users. The problem is a lack of capability that can be found in more complex UIs. Considering those are pre-unity compiz and KDE, they aren't particularly complex at the surface, just complex when you dig into it.

  • As a proponent, advocate, and consumer of free open source software, I cannot help but wonder what is wrong with the community... I had read some many vitriolic comments about Unity before I ever tried it that I was profoundly skeptical of it and expected a massive failure. The reality has been completely different. If anything the extent of differences is fairly underwhelming, and I generally find it mildly more polished than the previous interface. It's almost the same in many respects, and I could no
  • by digitalderbs (718388) on Monday October 31, 2011 @10:26PM (#37903086)
    I consider myself a power user, and I like unity. I've been using Linux exclusively for about 10 years now, and I run my own mail server, database, web server, and I tinker with sshd config files, send my emails with gpg--the works. I had switched from Debian to Kubuntu about 2 years ago, and I've used KDE from 3.1 to about 4.3. I switched away from KDE because it was slow with compositing and switching windows.

    Now unity does have its issues, but it has many strengths. The 2D interface is built on metacity, and it's very fast. One thing I like about unity is that the title bar serves the dual purpose as the status bar, saving about a half inch or more of vertical screen space on every window. I use the keyboard extensively for window management, and not having a title bar in addition to a status bar is a welcome change.

    The launcher stays out of the way (behind windows), and it can be easily used to launch applications with a keyboard. A number associated with each application on the launcher panel such that it'll either launch a new instance or switch to an existing instance instantly when pressed. For instance, I can press Win+1 from anywhere, and it'll take me to my browser, or open a new browser window.

    That said, unity definitely still needs work when it comes to managing a lot of windows. My typical workstation has 9 desktops with up to 9 windows on each. For applications, such as Gimp, that use multiple windows, minimizing and accessing different windows can be a hassle in unity. There are also some stability issues in unity.

    However, I do think that unity 2D shows great promise, particularly for users that are adept at keyboard shortcuts.
  • by drolli (522659) on Monday October 31, 2011 @10:40PM (#37903252) Journal

    If i should get used (=learn, test, adapt) to something new, i have to understand the advantage. I switch (small erratic test phases excluded) my working environment very seldom: From 1996 to 2002 i used (c)twm, from 2002 to 2006 icewm on slower machines and gnome on faster ones. After 2006 i only used gnome on ubuntu.

    So why do i switch?

    a) an old system "stops working" and that means its not well integrated into the current distro and compatibilities with standard programs are not checked. I like if things like network manager just are present on the standard desktop out of the box and if programs dont give erratic messages.

    b) Better, unbeatable features, like better possibilities for integration between programs.

    c) daily tasks get more easy by making better use of the screenspace

    In comparison to gnome Unity has a small advantage on my dell netbook, which i only used to read email, surf the web and listen to music.

    If i need more than 4 icons in unity then i use gnome-do. And i figured then i can just use the menu instead....

    However, none of the options (that includes Windows) IMHO beats the 1992 OS/2 WPS. I am really disappointed that, whenever i tried to use drag and drop in the last few years nothing (or something weird happend). The plethora of stupid web-packed in exe-applications made that even worse.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...