Slashdot Mirror


Canonical Bringing an Instant-On Ubuntu

Today at the Ubuntu Developers Summit, Mark Shuttleworth presented a few upcoming Ubuntu projects, including "Light" versions of the operating system for "both netbook and desktop, that are optimized for dual-boot scenarios." Shuttleworth also took the wraps off Unity, a new lightweight interface that will be included in Ubuntu Light and eventually in Ubuntu Netbook Edition as well. "First, we want to move the bottom panel to the left of the screen, and devote that to launching and switching between applications. That frees up vertical space for web content, at the cost of horizontal space, which is cheaper in a widescreen world. ... Second, we'll expand that left-hand launcher panel so that it is touch-friendly. With relatively few applications required for instant-on environments, we can afford to be more generous with the icon size there. ... Third, we will make the top panel smarter." Ars got a chance to try out a prototype of Unity, saying, "Its unique visual style melds beautifully with Ubuntu's new default theme and its underlying interaction model seems compelling and well-suited for small screens."

32 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting concept by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure how I'd like this in action, but I'm glad that they're at least trying a somewhat new direction with the 'Unity' interface, rather than the typical scenario of playing catchup with Windows and OS X that the open-source desktops seem to usually do. Even if it doesn't work out, at least it should hopefully encourage further innovation and something to actually set Linux, or specifically Ubuntu, apart from the crowd. The whole "free alternative to..." approach really hasn't been a selling point since the battle for the server room against the commercial Unix vendors 10+ years ago.

    1. Re:Interesting concept by Jim+Hall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I'm not sure how I'd like this in action, but I'm glad that they're at least trying a somewhat new direction with the 'Unity' interface ...

      If you'd like to see it in action, there's a short (1:39) video showing this on YouTube: Ubuntu 10.10 Unity Interface.

    2. Re:Interesting concept by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the typical scenario of playing catchup with Windows and OS X that the open-source desktops seem to usually do.

      Have you used ANY of the following:
      1) Compiz: way ahead of Mac of Windows. Lots of useless eye candy, but lots of useful stuff too
      2) KDE 4: highly configurable, applets that can run in a panel or on the desktop, all apps can transparently open remote files of ssh, ftp, as well as tar and zip archives, CD ripping (and transcoding) through drag and drop in the file manager, embedded components so you can preview documents in the file manager. KDE 3 and Gnome have most of these, but I picked KDE 4 because that is what I use.
      3) Fluxbox: tabbed windows
      4) Metisse: a completely different approach to 3D desktops
      5) Moblin: if that looks or works like Windows or Mac, you must be talking about a different Windows and Mac.
      6) Enlightenment 16: sliding, overlapping desktops years ago - while Windows still does not have multiple desktops without an extension
      7) Various tiling and keyboard driven window managers.

  2. Unity just for netbooks? Should be default! by Kethinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I saw the screenshots for Unity I was amazed. Finally defaults that make sense. I'm not a fan of dark themes, but that's easily changed. (e.g., in Lucid, switch from Ambience to Radiance.) There's no reason Unity should be limited to netbooks at all. In a world where widescreen monitors are commonplace, vertical space is always at a premium.

    But Unity does more than fix the vertical spacing issue, it brings Ubuntu's default's into the 21st century with task management as well. Even Windows has moved on from it's old school taskbar into something resembling the Dock from OSX. Unity's dock is a step in the right direction and placing it on the left is a smart choice.

    Unity should be what all Ubuntu versions ship with. Not just netbooks.

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Unity just for netbooks? Should be default! by aBaldrich · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wait for GNOME 3. Although you won't be able to use GNOME 3 + compiz anytime soon, there are many preview videos of the new GNOME that I find really interesting. (The second one is annotated in some slavic language but it shows many aspects of the menu and other interfaces)

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  3. Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Widescreen monitors waste tons of horizontal space and suffer a real lack of vertical space.
    I say move both tool bars to the sides. If gnome panel would rotate the words and icons I would already do this.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been putting the menu panel at the left side for years (in Gnome and in Windows) both to get the extra vertical space, and just because it makes sense to me. The problem is, Gnome seems to keep making it harder and harder to have it work properly there. The new indicator widgets are wide and don't seem to re-orient vertically, and Gnome Shell (Gnome 3.0) seems to not be able to move the panel to the side at all. I actually just bought a new netbook with better vertical resolution because I was sick of fighting (well, for development IDE's as well). The Unity work being done is the best interface news I've heard in ages.

    2. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, widescreen is rubbish for some purposes, and actually we'd prefer 4:3.
      Trying to "fix" the widescreen problem with software is just hacking around the fundamental lack of choice in screen formats now.

    3. Re:Brilliant! by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same here. It started with my netbook, as I tried desperately to maximize vertical space so that I could actually read pdfs and long web pages. From there it trickled into my main machine.

      One of the nice things I found to hack this together is Tree-Style Tabs for Firefox. Puts the tabs on the left and branches them from the tab that spawned them. That's the best way to organize tabs that I've ever seen.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Brilliant! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not so brilliant for a netbook, though. Most of them have just enough screen width to get the average website layout working optimally. People design webpages to scroll vertically, not horizontally, so a tiny bit of vertical space is not a big deal. I think the best thing to do would make the menu auto-hide. It wouldn't matter which orientation it was in then.

  4. Ubuntu Side By Side With OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently I was visiting a friend who use to work at Apple in the Human Interface Group some time ago and he had two of his machines setup side by side. One was OS X and the other was the latest Ubuntu.

    He sat there for a good hour going through painstaking detail of simple desktop operations and just how mind boggling bad Ubuntu/Gnome is in comparision. Many of the things I already knew from my own experience but it was shocking to have them put forth in such a direct and obvious light.

    Maybe everyone overestimated just what Canonical was going to do with Linux, but one has to wonder what exactly do they do all day there? My Apple friend was describing the teams of people he worked with on OS X and it wasn't some vast army of developers. It is hard to imagine that Canonical can't even get something remotely close to Apple's OS X interface technology with the employees they have.

  5. Panels left/right much better in widescreen world by RichMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    I run with the "launcher" panel on the left and the applicaion panel on the right.
    Both are auto-hide. This gives an lot of screen space on widescreen monitors.

    The big pain is the few icons that don't translate well to the side panels.

  6. Doing touch screens right... for lefties by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be nice if they could make the effort to implement a touch based layout without biasing against lefties. This is a significant annoyance especially with traditional mouse oriented controls like scroll bars. To do this right requires a design that minimizes the occurrence of the hand covering the screen while performing touch operations. Usually what happens is a system is designed assuming right handedness and the result is awkward to use for lefties. Ideally, applications and the window manager will dynamically change based on a user hand preference.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Doing touch screens right... for lefties by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hear ya... but I gave in long ago. I've adapted to a righty world. I now do almost everything righty, since that's what most tools are designed for. I still write left-handed, but that's just about the only thing I haven't converted yet.

      It was annoying for the first 5 or so years, but now I'm completely used to it.

      Lefties are never going to be 100% supported; better to get used to doing things righty, it'll make for a lot less frustration.

      Plus, your girlfriend/boyfriend/otherfriend will appreciate your ambidexterity, if you ever get the chance to make use of it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Doing touch screens right... for lefties by Bugamn · · Score: 3, Funny

      better to get used to doing things right

      Oh, I see what you did here.

  7. "Instant" by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We wanted to be surfing the web in under 10 seconds, and give people a fantastic web experience. We also wanted it to be possible to upgrade from that limited usage model to a full desktop.

    That's a strange definition of "instant." 10 seconds.

    1. Re:"Instant" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know! Instant rice takes at least 300 seconds. This is like time-travel, or something...

  8. File management by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ubuntu Light will not have any traditional file management and it will come with a few applications installed for web, media, mail etc.

    This is what really caught my eye.

    From the iPhone to the new Ubuntu, the wet dream of Hollywood and RIAA - a closed user-inaccessible file system seems to be making the rounds everywhere, including (evidently) in open source. It seem to be a part of an overall push not just to wring the last bits of control from the hands of the users, but to ensure that the users will be content consumers, not content creators.

    1. Re:File management by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the blog:

      The two primary pieces we need to put in place are:

      Support for many more applications, and adding / removing applications. Instant-on environments are locked down, while netbook environments should support anybody’s applications, not just those favored in the Launcher.

      Support for file management, necessary for an environment that will be the primary working space for the user rather than an occasional web-focused stopover.

      Emphasis mine. If this thing is going to fly at all, they'll need file management. It's that simple.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    2. Re:File management by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not at all. One of the biggest flaws in computer UI design today is that there are lots of things that are not stored as files but are still basically indivisible units of data, whether they're mail messages or database records or... you name it. Because so many of these things are not, in fact, files, a purely file-based view is a fairly clumsy way to represent that content. For most users, they don't need to know or care whether data is in a file or a database record or an email message in an mbox file. Abstracting those details away from the user results in a better user experience with more ability to manage the actual content than a pure file-based interface can provide.

      It's not like the filesystem in Ubuntu Light will cease to exist or will become inaccessible to power users. You'll just have to install tools to reach it. At least I assume that this is the case.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:File management by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the iPhone to the new Ubuntu, the wet dream of Hollywood and RIAA - a closed user-inaccessible file system seems to be making the rounds everywhere, including (evidently) in open source. It seem to be a part of an overall push not just to wring the last bits of control from the hands of the users, but to ensure that the users will be content consumers, not content creators.

      Being geeks we sometimes fail to notice, but it's also the wet dream of the average consumer. Just the other day I had a conversation with a group of non-geeks in which I mentioned the **AA-driven move away from real computers and towards net-enabled appliances. Every single one of them agreed they would happily ditch their PCs for such a device if they could also do their office work on it.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re:File management by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Abstracting those details away from the user results in a better user experience with more ability to manage the actual content than a pure file-based interface can provide.

      This reminds me of the Mac Girl that decided to burn CDs of her pictures because they were becoming too much to manage in iPhoto.

      Hiding the filesystem is fine until you find that your forced alternative doesn't scale quite well enough any more.

      It's absurd to get rid of a useful framework just because it's not "universal" enough.

      If anything, things should go in the other direction. subsets of data and metadata should be accessable in the filesystem or to the shell with simple tools. There should be more explosure of the data rather than less. A vfs interface for the mail system could actually be a pretty handy thing. Perhaps it would even enable a "delete all text messages" feature in the iPhone.

      Such an abstraction doesn't even need to be exposed to the end user most times. At least it's there, those that find the default tools lacking have some recourse.

      Interesting things should not be impossible. Neither should the inevitable tech support.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:File management by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is not a file? A big part of the whole *n.x ideology is that everything is a file.

      Emails are files in the MAILDIR, database records are indeed stored in the DB files. Do you think this is magic here?

    6. Re:File management by AlXtreme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Give me a lightweight, user friendly, hackable system with a browser, a terminal, and an SSH client, and I'll be a happy customer. And I know it can be done.

      You mean a N900?

      Funny how your post starts with not needing a file manager but ends with requiring a terminal.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
  9. Not keen on Ubuntu's direction. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No default GNOME shell? Going for lightweight, rather than modular? I don't see this as a logical direction for Ubuntu.

    For instant-on, you could have the computer boot in a completely clean state then freeze that state to file. I practically guarantee that unthawing that state, then tweaking it afterwards (kill -HUP is your friend) will be faster than any staged booting or threaded booting could ever be. The only exception is a daemon or other service that creates a large amount of state at start-time. Then, you simply create your clean image to exclude such services and start them once the image is in place.

    An alternative would be to do something similar, but instead of actually loading the software, you load and freeze hooks. This won't be quite as fast, but a frozen image of application hooks and corresponding DLL hooks (and perhaps the filesystem kernel modules) should be small enough to fit into a flash chip. This would "pre-boot" the computer without having to actually parse the init scripts and without having to have a full ramfs boot stage.

    In both these cases, I'm picturing that when you change any init script or any of the packages involved, the machine would need to rebuild the fast-boot images. This means that updating low-level packages would place a LOT more strain on the system. On the other hand, disk access is slow, scripts are slow and starting heavier applications is also slow. Cutting two of these three out would massively boost startup times, cutting all three out would be damn-near instant-on.

    (You actually could get instant-on with Coreboot + a running system image, and given that thumb drives have a larger capacity than older desktop systems, it's not impossible to imagine having such a system. Oh, and Coreboot works on a hell of a lot of platforms these days, for those who dismiss it as architecture-impaired. It's not perfect and it can be a pain at times as-is, but the one thing it's not short of is supported platforms.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Re:Uhm? by DavidR1991 · · Score: 3, Informative

    8th line of the summary:

    Second, we'll expand that left-hand launcher panel so that it is touch-friendly. With relatively few applications required for instant-on environments, [...]

  11. Re:This does not address the real problem. by stickystyle · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem: vertical space is limited.

    Quick hack: put toolbars on the sides.

    True fix: get a rotatable monitor!

    When I tried that with my laptop, it only worked once.

    --
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
  12. Horizontal vs. vertical space by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Horizontal space is cheap, unless you decide to run two applications side-by-side. This is a scenario which is extremely common for people who are writing a document (HTML, Latex, most programming languages, maybe also 3d editors) and like to have a preview of what they're writing/drawing/programming. Unfortunately, despite widescreens turning more and more popular, window managers do not seem to have caught on the trend. AFAICT, only with some obscure tiling window managers such as Awesome and Xmonad or some scripting uber-hacks can you have two applications side-by-side without resizing them manually every time (which is a PITA). Thanks Ubuntu, neat idea, but I would rather have the toolbars on the top and bottom, and some support for tiling horizzontally side-by-side two windows.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  13. Re:This does not address the real problem. by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A widescreen monitor turned sideways is truly awesome if you play vertical shooters (quite common under the MAME emulator).

  14. usability... by g253 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's also true for regular Ubuntu I guess, but it just noticed it with the screenshot in TFA for some reason: that whole bar at the top of the screen completely defeats the purpose of Chromium's "tabs at the top of the screen" approach.

  15. Re:Uhm? by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are jealous because your OS X box takes 20 minutes to boot?

    Here you go ....

  16. Re:Great netbook OS UI, instant on... Here, Today by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most Righteous Stallmanite,

    Here, before the court of Slashdot, I admit that I have committed the heinous sins of

    a) disobeying laywers for my own private, non-profit use, experimentation, and curiosity, without hurting ANYONE; and

    b) angering a Stallmanite.

    So great is my ethical decay that I don't even know which is worse!

    I know I am fortunate to live in a country where I will not be imprisoned or put to death for what I have done. If all flouters of EULAs were sent to the Moon or forced to work on GNU Hurd, just imagine what a better world this would be.

    Up Yours Sincerely,

    A Penitent EULA Flouter

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.