Slashdot Mirror
Google Talks About Its Ubuntu Experience
dartttt writes "There was a very interesting session at the Ubuntu Developer Summit by Google developer Thomas Bushnell. He talked about how Ubuntu, its derivatives and Goobuntu (Google's customized Ubuntu based distro) are used by Google developers. He starts by saying 'Precise Rocks,' and that many Google employees use Ubuntu — including managers, software engineers, translators, people who wrote the original Unix, and people who have no clue about Unix. Many developers working on Chrome and Android use Ubuntu. Ubuntu systems at Google are upgraded every LTS release. The entire process of upgrading can take as much as four months, and it is also quite expensive, as one reboot or a small change can cost them as much as a million dollars across the company."
Bushnell also mentions that Google Drive will soon be available for Linux. Other news out of UDS: there was discussion of a GNOME flavor of 12.10, Electronic Arts reaffirmed that they "won't delay their Windows work for Linux," and Unity 2D is likely to disappear in 12.10.
With Linux desktops, it's almost better to reimage them then do a mass roll out of dist-upgrade and pray it works. Even with custom package management, it seems the upgrade scripts can be very buggy.
But this guy actually manages a large fleet of ubuntu systems. Do you?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
There is much more to ubuntu than the default desktop environment, right from their hardware support to their extensive list of software and ppas. Even then, it's always good to have a modern but simple DE for people just getting into Linux, and Unity is one of the best DEs for that. (I personally use gnome shell)
OK, I'm not sure I understand the whole "get rid of Unity 2D" thing. As I understand it, Unity 3D means it's accelerated, but VMware and other virtualization environments don't support GPU acceleration for Ubuntu yet, so that leave people who prefer to run Ubuntu in a VM without a GUI. Where's the logic in that? Not even Windows forces you to have a modern video card for hardware acceleration -- if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, Windows just switches it off.
Breakfast served all day!
I just had a new bit of Unity experience yesterday. I had tried the early horribly unstable versions but switched away very quickly. Yesterday, I did a long-overdue update of Ubuntu on girlfriend's netbook to 12.04. Here's how it went after the upgrade.
She logs in, the computer seems a tad slow (yea, Unity 3D on a netbook). Figures out the icons for launching apps are on the left panel, wants to add GIMP there. Types gimp in the search bar thing, its icon appears. Right-clicks it hoping for a context menu, instead GIMP launches. Tries again, left-click, it launches. Tries again, drags the icon to the panel, it works. Sort of - the panel gets a button for the GIMP, but there's no icon on it, it just appears blank. Next she wants to run Chrome. As she types "chro", the UI freezes and shortly thereafter there's a message that Compiz crashed. It restarts, now GIMP's button shows the icon, too. She browses the Web for a bit, then I take the computer to see if I can turn some stuff off to speed it up. I open a terminal, check performance data there, try alt-tab, doesn't work. Okay. I open the control center, go to Appearance, Compiz crashes again. Then I find online that, to change Compiz-related config, I have to separately install a settings plugin for it. It's not available by default even through Unity is the default DE. At least then I found you can switch to Unity 2D.
I was pretty open to seeing how Unity would perform now. After all, I had only used the early versions. But this experience was horrible - 2 crashes within the first 15 minutes, definite slowness, and I'm pretty sure my gf will soon be asking to switch to a different interface, she's really uncomfortable with Unity so far.
Yes, Unity 2D is what she's currently trying. Switched to that from 3D quickly because 3D simply isn't suitable for a netbook. I'm surprised some post-install scripts don't switch the default environment to 2D for computers with weak graphics cards.
The irony for me here is that right now one of the things I'm struggling to get working in Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) is the Adwords Editor + Wine; this is *always* a complete pain in the arse, firstly to install, and then later on when you think you've got it working and then it wants to update... and fails.
The worst thing is, isn't Adwords Editor written with XUL? Shouldn't that make it portable or something? At this point, I'd prefer it was written in Java!
I work for S2Games, and we have had native Linux clients for Savage 1, Savage 2, and currently Heroes of Newerth. It was the Linux support that originally got me involved with the company's games and eventually hired. Our OpenGL renderer is slightly lacking at the moment, but the main problem is that of business and market share, not technical reasons. Maintaining something around only 4% of the user base uses is difficult (mac and linux combined), but many of the community volunteers come from that mac/linux group. As the guy who runs the technical support, I really wish more people would play on Linux. The Linux problems are usually much easier to solve (except alsa problems). With Windows issues, there's a lot of uncertainty with firewall setups, antivirus, file permissions, and odd behavior in general. With Linux, the problem can usually be identified with a few tests. It's a viscous circle. There aren't many Linux games because not many gamers run Linux, and there aren't many Linux games because the companies don't want to have to increase build times for each patch by supporting another OS. EA taking this small first step may help break this cycle, which is only good news for Linux gaming.
is that EA has even noticed Linux.
They noticed that the browser based games they are pushing happen to work fine in Linux systems without any work at all. That's the only sort of game they are enabling. They aren't doing anything with their 3D game engine sort of stuff. Basically, Linux is a side-effect of pursuing the casual gamer market through browsers.
but you guys hand pick your hardware, you're in the minority.
Except that most people who even kind of care stick with brand names like 'Radeon' and 'nVidia' that do 'just work' in windows and linux distributions that are practical about helping with binary blobs (e.g. fedora isn't 'just work' until you add fusion, but ubuntu just works). Intel integrated as of *late* also just works (in more places) though it's unimpressively slow. In theory you can get non-AMD, non-nVidia, non-Intel graphics, but I'm hard pressed to think of a *consumer* product that does that anymore.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Ubuntu/Precise is awesome. It really shows how much effort went into this release. I am extremely happy with how little I needed to customize or fix after installing it on my laptop (suspend/resume, encrypted file systems, unusual hardware drivers ... all the things that usually cause problems worked out of the box).
On the other hand, despite trying to get used to Unity, the new UI just does not work for me. I can even (almost) understand the design choices. It certainly looks shiny and discoverability of most UI features is pretty good. A lot of the UI has been simplified to make it easier to use for casual users.
Unfortunately, almost every single one of these changes really gets in the way of my day to day productivity. I spend so much time every day using my computer, I need a window manager that gets out of the way most of the time. And that defaults to doing the right thing, when I need it to do something for me.
I am sure, as a power user with very specific requirements, I am not in the primary target group for Unity. But fortunately, after installing GNOME Panel and the Awesome window manager, I found a solution for my UI needs. I am now as happy as can be. This is by far the nicest Linux distribution I have used.
I'm surprised some post-install scripts don't switch the default environment to 2D for computers with weak graphics cards.
..or indeed, people with nVidia cards which are still waiting for a stable driver.
The thing I hate about the launcher is how ridiculously hard it is to create a custom launcher. My use-case: I have a shell script I like to run occasionally. I'd like to have a nice clicky icon to run it from. This should be simple to do... but is sooooo isn't. Worst part is any documentation I found suggested I could create a file on the desktop, right-click that and choose a "Create launcher" open. Or something like that. Anyway, I think that option used to exist, but they dropped it from 12.04 without apparently thinking to create an alternative.
...I find myself ranting quite a lot over 12.04, but to be fair, I do like that DVD's play perfectly right from a fresh install, and I don't get any screen tearing when watching DVDs / web video. So it's not all bad. Only the bad bits are bad!
Ubuntu 12.04 + Cinnamon. Better than Linux Mint 12, though I'm anxious to see what LM13 will look like.
Create a .desktop file for your script: https://linuxcritic.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/anatomy-of-a-desktop-file/
The last update to Ubuntu brought advertising into my desktop. I tried to search for an application and the unity dashboard presented me with music albums from the music store.
Fucking hell.
I understand if they pack rhythmbox chokefull of advertising for their music store. I would hate it but I'd at least understand it. But when the simple task of starting an application, the most basic task of graphical shells, is used as an opportunity to advertise to me, I've had enough.
That's jumping the shark twice.
I already ditched Ubuntu for LinuxMint in my desktop but used Ubuntu in my media center. I'm changing OS next time.
But... the future refused to change.
You now only have 1 window for the same application, no matter how many chrome or terminal windows you might have open.
I must be missing something. You do Alt-tab to the application, then press down to show all the windows of that application. How is that only having one window?
Dilbert RSS feed
Well, it's probably not what you're looking for, but the next version (Jelly Bean) lists the ability to install and dual boot on a laptop as one of the goals. Reader beware: I'm not really into Android development, so I'm just going off of the Wikipedia article, which lists it as being released third quarter this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history
I just read it, so if somebody could confirm, deny or provide more info, it would be interesting. Android could be a nice Linux on a desktop for many people. Assuming you actually mean Linux itself and not "X Windows, etc etc".
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
It's not like it's a big deal just to use a different DE.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Just because Google uses it doesn't mean it's any good. I'm not being a troll here - if you'd try a distro other than Ubuntu, you'd find that Ubuntu isy really, really bad, bloated, and slow. Yes, there are other distros that are equally as bad or worse, but there is an abundance of distros that far exceed what Ubuntu provides.
I'd suggest Archlinux myself, or plain old Debian if you want something that's stable and easy. Arch has rolling updates meaning you don't have milestones - packages just get updated as they get changed by their developers, so no real upgrade hell there. Debian is rock solid (more than Ubuntu), and is great for servers and everything in between - it's the right balance of coddling/ease of use and stability, without the bloat and crap.
The real issue with Ubuntu's serious suckage is that it's been made too corporate, and has been hijacked by a corp. While other distros are funded and run by corps, they tend to keep the spirit of open, nonintrusive, non ad-based OS'es going instead of forcing changes, ads, and other BS (like Unity) on their users without any real notice. They also don't make people so unable to fix their own problems by coddling them with a GUI for everything.
This (boring) video says more about Google and its parasitic nature than it does about Ubuntu. You'll probably want to save yourself the time and pass on it. The most noteworthy piece of information I got out of it was this: Google's internal apt repos blacklist certain packages for reasons of privacy. As the speaker mentions, many of these packages phone home, and that's unacceptable to Google. Also, no coredumps/automated bug reports will make it out alive because "who knows what's in them".
And Google has a very, very good reason to have this policy. They know *damn* well the power of data mining. And they sure as hell aren't going to willingly participate in that game. I mean, as a contributor, that is.
Yeah, and Google, instead of telling us how huge you are and that it costs you a megabuck to upgrade your workstations when the latest Ubuntu LTS comes down the pike, you could at least (a) keep your hubris to yourself (it's really, really cheap and tacky), and (b) thank the folks at Debian for their hard work and brilliant distro. (This coming from a die-hard Red Hat user)
If you've been using Linux since 1997 then you should have been able to fix this. And you should have known you needed backups NO MATTER what. You trusted a vendor with a system YOU depended on? That isn't Linux OR the vendors fault .. that's ALL on you. I mean seriously ... after being a "proponent" of Linux for FIFTEEN years .. you let your "sweet setup" get borked up and couldn't fix it.
I call bullshit.
This I've been an advocate of Linux for years and just want it to work .. is a lot like started a statement with " I have a lot of black friends but .. " AND everyone knows here comes the line of bullshit.
Have fun being Windows only. Rock on.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
Have a separate (huge) partition for /home.
Have multiple OS partitions (about 30GB each, give or take).
Have your Ubuntu on one OS partition.
Install the latest Ubuntu on another OS partition, fresh or over a dd copy of the old one.
Switch among them as desired.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
When I upgraded Ubuntu and encountered Unity, I too was shocked at how bad it was. Instant revulsion. I tried to stick with it for 6 weeks to see if it was just me, but it was bad. I got rid of it and reverted to Gnome, but it had grown so bloated that the responsiveness of the entire system had gone to hell. Thank god I discovered the light-weight windowing environments that have been out there for years, maintained by a small but loyal fan base. I switched to XFCE and hey presto my venerable 600mhz machine was as spry as a young'un. It made me wonder how long I could stretch this machine out, whether or not its physical components would give out before the progressively greater demands of the OS would drive me back to the good ol' CLI for everything...
If not us, who? If not now, when?
I have been using computers for about 15 years now and here are my thoughts concerning OS updates and (to a lesser degree) updates in general:
I try to avoid updates like hell.
More often than not, an upgrade will tend to make the system slower, influence your user experience by changing the way you do stuff (for no apparent reason), and break things. So unless we are talking about an update that adds important functionality that is worth the risk it comes with, it just won't come anywhere near my system(s). Obviously, this way of filtering updates lets (most) security updates pass for machines that are online. I put really important systems on an air-gap network.
The above also means that UI (or similar) updates are straight out. No UI is flawless. No OS comes complete with the functionality you wished for. Once you set up a system and adjust it so that it won't (badly) suck, then chances are that you will be finding ways to add functionality using 3rd party software, learn how to do things someone decided you are not supposed to (also known as "hacks" for you youngsters) and in general bring it to a state that you are more or less happy with.
They why, oh why, do you have to go and mess it up?
I'm not saying that I don't use the new stuff, but usually such new experiences also come with new machines that (in general) get fresh installations of the latest versions of everything that is needed. I found this to minimize the pain and time wasted, and most importantly, it puts you in control. If you perform a casual update and things go awry, then it is highly probable that you will be wasting time on trying to fix it, while you should be paying attention on more important things.
Love the joke at 7:30: they're blocking Ubuntu packages that phone home, since they cannot afford to let work-data leave company premises... however, they CAN use Google Drive.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The instability of Unity is not a grand conspiracy by people who dislike Ubuntu. Unity crashed every few minutes for me on 11.04, I had to switch desktops to GNOME classic (2.32). Unity has never crashed for me in 11.10 or 12.04 - but I highly doubt all these claims that it still crashes are fabricated.