Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron

Opurt writes "On the first day of the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston this week, a roundtable session focused on the vision for the upcoming Hardy Heron Ubuntu release. Unlike Gutsy Gibbon, which brought a handful of experimental features along with some new functionality, the focus with Heron will be on robustness as it will be supported on the desktop for 3 years. 'The Compiz window manager, which adds sophisticated visual effects to the Ubuntu user interface, will be a big target for usability improvements. Keyboard bindings and session management were noted as two areas where Compiz still needs some work.' PolicyKit and Tracker will also be significantly tweaked, while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh."

Comments

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gclef]

There's one problem with this: Patches. One of the truly lovely things about a package manager is that it becomes your one-stop place for patches to all applications on the system. Once you leave the package manager, and have users dumping .app files randomly onto their system, you have no good way of getting patches for those apps. This dramatically weakens the security of your system.

I can see wanting a way for little userland apps (that are unlikely to ever get patches anyway) to install in for just one user. But for big, system-wide things (like a browser, or OOo) a free-for-all /Application directory is a really bad idea.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[DaleGlass]

In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already.

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration. Meaning, having part of the filesystem be shared through NFS. /etc, /bin, /sbin and /lib are needed for the system to boot. /usr may be mounted from a share, and can be readonly.

The different locations for binaries, settings, etc, makes it very easy to share data between a hundred boxes, but not the configuration, or the configuration as well if you want it.

Even if you don't need a network, this is still nice for system administration. For example my general layout is root FS on plain RAID-1, then /usr, /var and /home mounted from LVM. This ensures that even if LVM gets messed up somehow, the box still boots, and in fact it boots from any surviving drive since it's a software RAID-1. Since a functional system is already in place, recovery is much easier.

But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

The thing is that you don't understand the original model. You seem to think that the layout is the way it is because people just threw stuff into the first place they could think of. Learn why it's the way it is, then come up with a good reason why the original reasons are no longer good, and only then there can be a sensible discussion of the subject.

Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

If I wanted OS X, I'd use OS X. Your idea isn't new, and has been discussed hundreds of times before. That Ubuntu still keeps the old layout should be a hint.

In my opinion...

[Derek Loev]

Right now the biggest fault with Ubuntu is Gnome. I've been using Ubuntu since the day Gutsy was released (previously a Gentoo user) and I love so many aspects of it. I even like the simplicity of Gnome compared to KDE. But, why does Gnome lack so many customization options. I mean, seriously, with so many developers it cannot be very difficult to create some small programs that modify GConf. That should be Gnome's priority and because Ubuntu relies so heavily on Gnome it needs to be one of Ubuntu's priorities to get the ball rolling.
I want to add different folders to my Places bar at the top of the screen, I want to add different buttons (like the Home folder, seriously, it was difficult) to the desktop. I want to be able to edit my Network servers in the Places bar.
I've figured out how to do all of this with gconf but there is absolutely no reason for me to not to be able to go into my System tab and figure out how to do this with a nice, pretty graphical program.
This post may be a little off topic and I know that Ubuntu comes in different flavors (Kubuntu, Xubuntu) but when the majority of users are going to be using Gnome with Ubuntu, then Gnome needs to improve to the point where it does not detract from the Ubuntu experience.

WARNING *OPINIONS* PRESENT

[ericrost]

This is why I love Linux. Gnome fills my needs perfectly, but I'm not every user. KDE fills your needs perfectly, but again, you're not every user. Rather than getting into ugly pissing matches about who'd desktop is better, we can coexist and each have something we like.

I think the reasons for KUbuntu being less polished are pretty easily guessable. Ubuntu tends to be for newer Linux users (although I fall into the PowerUser/wannabe dev category). Gnome is a good DE for the underlying philosophy of Ubuntu (usable out of the box with little to no configuration, but able to be tweaked to your level). KDE tends to be for those that just need things exactly their way. KDE is not the default, so it falls to the downstream Kubuntu dev team to put the polish into the releases, and their a minority. Their working hard (I would imagine) on finishing KDE4's integration.

Anyhow, less of a point, more of a "this is why Linux gets my vote" post.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dan the person]

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration.

Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.

Re:Experiences

[swillden]

It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does.

No, it doesn't.

I needs to run all of the software that people need. With a few exceptions, Ubuntu provides equivalent software to what's available for Windows, typically at a much better price. And the exceptions tend to be fairly specialized, expensive software packages, not general desktop stuff.

As for hardware, at this point in time Gutsy has better hardware support than Vista does, overall. There are a couple areas where Vista is better (wireless), but there is lots of hardware around, particularly older stuff, that Vista does not support and Ubuntu does.

In any case, the real way to beat the hardware support issue is to get Ubuntu pre-installed, and put it on the manufacturer to make sure that all of the hardware in the box works. That's how it works for Windows. You also need support for add-ons, but these days those are all USB and danged near everything works (cue the anecdotes from people who've found something that doesn't) just fine on Ubuntu. In fact, it often works *better* than it does on Windows because Windows will often require you to install some driver software whereas with Linux you just plug it in and it starts working.