Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 14.04 Brings Back Menus In Application Windows
sfcrazy writes "Canonical is bringing back menu integration with application windows. In 14.04 there will be an option for users to enable menus in application windows. That's a huge u-turn from Mark's stand on Global Menus which upset a lot of Ubuntu users."
I did not realize people still use Ubuntu.
I can live with them or without them, but they need to pick one way to do it and stick with that.
As a big fan of focus-follows-mouse, this will finally make Ubuntu at least *usable*, if not pretty. FFM is in direct odds with global menus.
Bonus points if they label the configuration settings "be like a Mac" and "be like every other computer on the planet". Maybe this signals the end of the continual macification of Unity?
A good property of UI is to remain stable so that user can get used to it. It would be nice if they could stop changing stuff on every release.
When I launch a program, preferebly from a menu, I expect the program to offer a menu that provides a way for the program to accomplish the things that I want to do. Sure most will need to open a file, edit that file, and close that file, but some need to simply display that files data while others need to provide a way to change that files content. And yes, there are nealy infinite amounts of variations of just how users need to manipulate a file. A universally consistent and simple system that encompasses all the possible things that a person might what to do to data is simply not possible.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Linux users like what they want. That might not conform to whatever your personal preferences are or what's trendy. That doesn't make Linux users "luddites". It makes them something other than mindless drones.
Beyond that, going out of your way to try and copy that other marginal player in the industry us just retarded. You will pretty much ensure that less saavy users are alienated by something that seeks to be annoyingly different for it's own sake.
You think Linux users are luddites? We're not even close to that compared to the bulk of the potential users out there.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is there any compelling reason for them to "stick" with something? Having the choice is a positive good. Unity's lack of options is what drove me away from it.
This is an "opt-in" if you will - not a direct change.
I've been mostly fine with the UX of Unity, but it really is a damn laggy and slow desktop, and also buggy as heck. I thought Canonical had the resources to set things straight but the quality assurance is just horrible. The Fedora KDE spin is my current happy place in Linux world.
Ubuntu backtracking with 14.04, Microsoft backtracking with "Windows 9".... It's as though suddenly this ridiculous small-form-factor bubble has burst. And about goddamn time.
Agreed, but this is an opt-in. I'll develop muscle memory when I have a UI configured to my tastes rather than rewire my sinews to a forced interface.
But, when you use a real computer with multiple programs/windows it's anoying to switch from one another app to perform act like transfering content from Writer and Calc.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Yes, because anyone who questions your viewpoint and politics is obviously an ignorant luddite. ..and liberals wonder why others perceive them as arrogant, totalitarian, histrionic, narcissists. Tolerance and diversity only applies to their own viewpoints and protected castes, I guess.
Global menus work ok for small desktops (1024x768 tops), but with huge desktops that have multiple windows side by side, having to select the window and move the mouse to the top of the screen to use the menu for it is a pain.
Intelligent users like configurations that work for their workflows. When they are obviously changed out just for change's sake, they become irritated. This applies to any platform. Change for change's sake has become a fad in the last 5-6 years, and it's driving people nuts.
I've never understood why we can't get the window-manager and the application to play nice, and share one bar. Usually, there's plenty of space horizontally, and too little vertically. So, why not have the combination of: ....... "The window title goes here" ....... _ [] X
[icon] File Edit View History Bookmarks Tools Help
I've been okay with the dash and the side bar look of new ubuntu. It's mostly been the same for me. I switch between different desktops all the time, so I'm not particularly attached to any one or the other as long as it doesn't really impede my workflow. What I hate and still can't get used to is the global menu. I accidentally close out of so many applications because I don't realize I'm actually focused in another window. It annoys the piss out of me, and takes away the concept of the window. The window is it's own little self contained world. Menus for that window should be with that window. I still can't get used to clicking for focus on a window, and then dragging my mouse all the way back up to the top of the screen to get a menu for a window. It really only works well for a full maximized applications.
So the rest of the menu complaints are irrelevant.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You mean like the old versions of MacOS? What are these Linux people smoking?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If you don't like it, change it yourself!
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Maybe this can help Ubuntu to recover some of Us that fled away because of Unity and global menu. Okay, Im using 12.04; but I have some fresh Arch Linux waiting to take over this f*cked Acer all in one that have a crappy uefi-BIOS. --
FFM is not actually fundimentally incompatible with focus-follows-mouse. Gnome 3 works around it by providing an option called 'focus-change-on-pointer-rest'. It works extremely well on a trackpad because you general lift your finger once the pointer is over a window. With a mouse, it gives a slight lag because your hand isn't as steady.
Why does this work well with global menus? Because when you use global menus, you throw the pointer to the top of the screen, using fits law.
The reason I use FFM to begin with is because I hate having to aim and make sure I hit a tiny widget or make sure I don't accidentally click a link on a webpage when trying to give focus to the window. Having menubars in windows is an extension of that problem. I would probably care less if mouse motion was actually one-to-one, but it isn't.
I don't think users have a problem with innovation or new things... they have a problem with being bound with an interface NOT DESIGNED FOR DESKTOP COMPUTERS.
Unity = Metro = Crap (on desktop)
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writi...
Ubuntu is like Slashdot Beta but I give them points for trying to bring users back...
That escalated quickly....
All of these menu's are driving me crazy. I's don't need so many menu's. You's should all's agree with me.
I miss the craftsmanship of professional journalists sometimes, and if not the journalists, then at least their attentive copy editors who know basic English pluralization rules.
--Jim (me)
Why Apple has made the perfect UI, how could you not love the best design for DJs and Photoshoppers? There are about 10 things wrong with OSX and they are all random design crap Jobs picked -
Global menus,
Single mouse click,
Left window controls (yay for all the left handed and left eye dominant people, boo for the other 95% of the world)
Launchpad (how is the start menu missing causing a revolt and launchpad even exist? Launchpad is the initial SIN!)
Finder layout straight out of system commander circa 1988.
Crap loads of docked icons you never use be default.
A separate contact and calendar app....
General iOS crap
Hardwired application dependency locations (the whole point of application folders is to stop that!)
Scroll bars that disappear even if your mouse is near them and appear at the bottoms of pages OVERTOP content.
I could go on and complain about the apps, but lets say OSX is great for people who use a computer like they use iOS and leave it at that....
One happy user... ...Millions minus one to go.
Go Mark, go!
why do you think Unity was not designed for desktop computers? been using it on one for almost 2 yrs...
There actually are some good reasons for going with a global menu bar. When developing the original interface for the Mac, Apple studied the various options for the menus in depth. What they found is that when the menus are at the top of the screen, they are significantly faster to access, as they have infinite depth, thus you do not have to be anywhere near as accurate in your pointing to access them. In effect, you only need to have to worry about the left-right position of the cursor, as you can just fling it to the top of the screen and not be precise in that dimension. If the menu bar is attached to the window, you have to position the the cursor in both dimensions. The ultimate of this is the screen corners, which is also the reason for the Apple Menu being up there. This is a subtle effect, but is backed up by some good hard data.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Fluxbox with keybindngs makes life much easier. Linux was never about the androids and the unity's ... It was about reconfiguring the meal no matter what is served . And in rare cases cooking your own meal . (LFS etc. )
why do you think Unity was not designed for desktop computers?
Same reason why I think Thief 3 wasn't designed for desktop computers. Because it wasn't.
Apple is not Linux, We are not apple... (we are Devo), why care about apple's study? Their research is FOR Their products, PC/laptop aren't apple, Linux is not apple(Thanks God!), what works with apple can or cannot work for others.
In southpark some can eat with their ass, but not the rest of us (I don't want to try it, btw).
Oh, I can use it and Metro too... that doesn't make it designed to work efficiently on desktop computers.
Let me see
Gnome/KDE/Windows Start Menu
1 or 2 clicks to see almost everything thats installed on the system
2 or 3 clicks to run one of those applications
Unity
Searching, typing, filtering, trying to ignore ads and knowing what you're looking for... 14327942 clicks and keys pressed.
Ubuntu was supposed to be user friendly for those who wanted to leave Windows, Unity is plain stupid for application management. Even Metro is better and I really hate it. I was considering using Ubuntu again (the last one I used was 9.04 and didn't pay much attention to its development after that) but after looking at 13.10 I wiped it after 25 minutes... 5 minutes wtf-ing about the interface, 5 minutes looking for the installed applications and 15 min trying to give it a chance while being creeped out by the ads... no thanks, it is a dangerous OS for the average user.
haha, MY attitude was rude? I suggest you reread your post. I simply responded in kind. Yes, of course, you should always assume people who disagree with you are trolls. That way, in your own mind at least, you won't have to face whatever challenges were brought against your views. While it denies you the chance to learn something new, at least you can stay in that nice self-absorbed realm of petty narcissistic solipsism. You do realize this attitude lives up to that negative liberal stereotype I mentioned?
It's quite easy to tell the difference between useful innovation and when someone kills needed/useful functionality to hop on a bandwagon. Grafting tablet interfaces onto desktop systems is definitely an example of the latter. The change brought about all kinds of grief for people who actually do more with their computers than use them as facebook terminals. You shouldn't hate them so much for their attitudes, because they're the ones who make the content for you to consume on your tablets (or tablet-interface addled computers).
He's welcome to have a different view and do what he wants with his company/money. Only spineless fairies like you would rush to silence criticism of yourself or others, in order to avoid feeling bad (or having others feel bad), truth be damned. This is that special snowflake syndrome that is dissolving the spine of western culture. To hell with that. I do use something else, but, I have a right to state my views, too. I realize this right offend people like you who can't handle criticism, but that's not my problem. Of course, that's why you elect politicians who'd love to stamp out free speech, right? To make it my problem, and make up for the fact your arguments are without merit?
Trust me, I played for hours and at the time it was fun. Not so much any more.
(emphasis mine; not as OT as it looks.)
I started on Linux in 1994 - Slackware, wasn't it? I had to port nearly everything from SunOS or HP-UX or AIX or Irix, or whatever. It was fun working with it, and fun watching it grow.
But eventually I got tired of constantly having to futz with everything to make it work. It was not unlike having to tune up your car every time you went for a drive around the block, and having to replace the engine and tires every time you wanted to drive across town to see grandma. Anyhow it gets tiring when it's getting in the way of doing your day job.
Then we get some of the silliness from Ubuntu trying to shove a new way down everyones' throat - new way isn't bad or good, it's the shoving-down-my-throat that I'm not so fond of. Reminds me of some of our favorite empires - MS,Oracle, ...
Mac OS has been like this since System 1. And it makes sense; whatever you're doing, its menu is going to be in the same place. Fitts' law indicates that the most quickly accessed targets on any computer display are the four corners of the screen.
Mac OS has supported multiple mouse buttons for at least 16 years. Even when using a now-extinct one button mouse, control-click presented a dialogue box.
Because it's easier to move a mouse up/left with your right hand, and was developed in a country that reads left-to-right.
The start menu missing is causing a revolt because Microsoft removed something and replaced it with an abomination. Launchpad - and other questionable features like Dashboard - can be completely ignored.
Column view in Finder is optional, with icon and list view still available. Also, Finder has had its sorting options greatly improved throughout OS X's history.
If you go and buy a Mac today, this is in the Dock:
- Finder: File management
- Launchpad: Access to all apps not in the Dock (And easily ignored, as previously discussed)
- Safari: A web browser
- Mail: Email client
- Contacts: An address book
- Calendar: A calendar
- Notes: Short notes
- Maps: A map of the entire planet
- Messages: Text messaging and IM
- FaceTime: Video chat
- Photo Booth: Something fun to play with on your new computer
- iPhoto: Something to talk to your camera
- Pages: Word processing
- Numbers: Spreadsheets
- Keynote: Presentations
- iTunes: Play and purchase music and TV/movies
- iBooks: Read and purchase books
- App Store: Install and purchase software
- System Preferences: Change settings on your computer
The default Dock icons cover managing your computer, using the big two features of the Internet, syncing 'organisational' information with your phone, finding locations, messaging and video chatting with other people, photography, writing, processing numbers, creating presentations, watching media, reading, and installing an app to do anything else you want your computer to do. The default Dock is a slam-dunk for covering what the majority of people use computers for, points users in the right direction to add new capabilities to the computer, and is easily customised to remove the things you don't want. (Launchpad, again...)
The Dock is setup perfectly for you to get started with your computer. Anything else you need to get to can either be accessed through Spotlight (power users) or Launchpad (for people with more experience with iOS).
Just like iOS... but also NeXTSTEP; they have always been separate apps, which makes finding what are ultimately different tasks easier *and* they also seamlessly share the same databases behind the scenes.
Integration with touchpads is great. Removing always-visible scrollbars removes needless clutter. Things like Launchpad - and pretty much anything else you don't like that reminds you of iOS - are easily disabled or ignored.
Maybe I should have just said people that are resistant to change.
The is nothing wrong with resisting pointless change. I used Unity and didn't like it. Not because it was different, but because it wasn't an improvement.
I'm someone who wants change. For example, I think Linux is dated and I would ditch it for Hurd if that thing could ever work reasonably well one day.
I tried Unity, I tried to adapt to it, but it is, for me, a step in the wrong direction. Maybe it's because I'm using three monitors (one 27" and two 22"), maybe it's because I'm using too many programs, working on too many files and doing too many tasks, but Unity doesn't work well for me.
But the thing is I think Linux fragmentation is bad. I think Linux needs a strong leader. That's why I think going with the most popular distribution makes sense and that's why I chose to switch to Ubuntu a few years ago. I guess I should now move to Mint, but I also think Canonical is in a better position to help Linux gain market share. So saying "use something else" is not a good solution for me. For me, the best solution would be for Canonical to offer more options with the UI in order to satisfy more people instead of forcing one design choice to everyone.
I won't allow you that! gnome and kde started fucking their users before before it became mainstream.
Well, I haven't liked Unity from the start. The fact that I do not have a list of the programs that are installed (like the windows start menu or the Gnome menu) is very upsetting. The fact that I have to know what I'm looking for in the dash to be able to look for it just doesn't work. I don't remember all the programs that I've installed on the computer?! Let alone know which ones were pre-installed.
Every time I install a new Ubuntu I go for the classic Gnome shell (which seems to have to be renamed in newer versions, because "we linux users are not afraid of change").
I'm sorry, but I don't want my UI to change drastically. Then I have to learn something new and I find myself to old to do this for trivial tasks like the use of my computer.
No, I also don't like or want to use Windows 8's metro interface or Office 2010's ribbon.
Then we get some of the silliness from Ubuntu trying to shove a new way down everyones' throat
Oh yeah, they're REALLY forcing it down our throats...
Recognised Ubuntu flavours
These are derivatives that use Ubuntu as their foundation and contribute significantly towards the project.
Edubuntu — Ubuntu for education
Ubuntu GNOME — Ubuntu with the GNOME desktop environment
Kubuntu — Ubuntu with the K Desktop environment
Ubuntu Kylin — Ubuntu localised for China
Lubuntu — Ubuntu that uses LXDE
Mythbuntu — Designed for creating a home theatre PC with MythTV
Ubuntu Studio — Designed for multimedia editing and creation
Xubuntu — Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop environment
Other derivatives
A complete list of known derivatives is maintained on the Ubuntu Wiki Derivatives Team page.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Deriva...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Because the optimal UI for desktop computers was a solved problem five years ago.
Because UX people need to put "mobile" on their CVs and resumes in order to get hired anywhere.
Because I'm sick of being the guinea pig for some UX weenie who only cares about his next paid gig.
Moron.
Thats why I like that windows 8.1 got rid of all that glass crap everywhere and i dont really touch any metro stuff since none of the applications i use have metro versions
so you love they got rid of that glass crap (on the desktop I assume you mean) and then you only use the desktop.
You must be a designer - every new interface is so cool, and clean, and elegant, with its fresh lines and clean interface.... as long as you don't have to the use the horrific stuff.
Diclaimer: I use Linux every day for work. I use Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I don't use Unity.
The usability problem with Unity menus is not that they are either local or global, it's the fact they they disappear every time you take your mouse away from them, please don't make me have to mouse over the window title to get the menu to appear. While this sounds simple enough to do, it causes you to haltingly mouse over the general area of the menu bar, then wait for the thing to render, then visually locate what you want, then mouse over it and click. In the good old days, one could just mouse over to the precise menu location and click-it in a single move
Unity now provides the user with a choice as to whether they would like to break your menu in either a local way or a global way, sadly the problem still exists. Please stop breaking user interfaces with stupid design!
For the record, I use MATE as my desktop because all this new fangled sausage-finger friendly crap is simply not a productive place to work
meh
Note it's been a while since I've used OSX more than some trivial playing with the newer touchpad in a Macbook Air, so I've refrained from commenting on more recent things.
This said, the post a couple above yours was specifically about *older* versions of Mac OS and I think that's still relevant.
Fitts' law indicates that the most quickly accessed targets on any computer display are the four corners of the screen
The problem with the Fitt's Law argument is it only makes sense if your computing experience ends with clicking that menu item.
For instance, if you now have to move the mouse to the window, it's now maximally far away from your cursor and not near a screen edge, and Fitts Law says you just made things a kazillion times worse.
And if you want to interact with two windows (eg. copy from one, paste in another, using menus), you've added another step to switch which menu is available. Admittedly, virtually the whole world has figured out the keyboard shortcuts for cut, copy, and paste, since those are some of the most universally useful commands.
This all means that hot corners and hot edges for the mouse should be reserved for the sort of interactions that are fairly universal between apps, and which logically terminate a sequence of actions. For instance, closing an app (debatable because of accidental clicking, but common), switching to another app that's behind the current app, that sort of thing.
Mac OS has supported multiple mouse buttons for at least 16 years.
It was supported but not really seriously encouraged until more recently than 16 years. But yes, it's an out of date argument now. Just...not 16 years out of date.
Left Window Controls
I don't believe either your argument or the GP's. I'm very skeptical that it's "easier" to move up and to the left with your right hand rather than up and right, which is directly away from you rather than going across your body. But frankly, a mouse is not hard enough to use to justify left vs. right in any way. Window control positions are basically arbitrary (so long as they are in a consistent place within the OS, eg. corner of the window as we've all settled on).
General iOS crap
Integration with touchpads is great. Removing always-visible scrollbars removes needless clutter.
Touchpads are not iOS. I can see how they might seem related, but it is a fundamentally different interaction model when you're operating on a device distinct from the screen. Minimizing input delay is not as important, pinching takes on a different aspect, different opportunities exist simply because your hands aren't covering the viewport, etc.. Don't get me wrong -- I think improved touchpad support is great. I just don't think it has all that much to do with "General iOS crap". I guess maybe the fact that people were trained on iOS to perform certain gestures?
Acorn mice had a dedicated middle button for bringing up menus wherever you were in a window.
The other thing I really miss is being able to use the right button ("Adjust") to select a menu option and keep the menu open. I've never seen this in any other OS (not that I've seen many).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I agreed with all of that except your comment on the scroll bars.
Scroll bars are NOT needless clutter. They are a visual cue on the amount of content on the screen vs the amount of content that you can't see. Right now with a quick glance I can see I'm only half way through reading the comments. I can't do that if the bar is hidden, and I'd need to do something like move the page.
I hate this on touchscreens as well but it's more forgiveable since any finger touching the screen will make the bars reappear. I can't do that while I'm typing on a keyboard.
I'm still using a physical keyboard because it's better than a touch keyboard. The Windows 8 interface was an unnecessary and inconvenient change and yes I know you can do X, Y and Z to make it less annoying but then what was the point of the change? It hasn't improved anyone's experience and just puts extra, undocumented steps in that confuse everyone, even the techies. That goes double for Server 2012 where Metro is a completely unnecessary nuisance.
Good!
Continuing in this direction, Ubuntu 18.04 might be as good as Ubuntu 10.10!
I'm someone who wants change. For example, I think Linux is dated and I would ditch it for Hurd if that thing could ever work reasonably well one day.
How the fuck is a discussion on user interface menus in any way relevant to the Linux or Hurd kernels ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I for one welcome the almighty Unity interface, with Global Menus.
Now, 12.04, Unity is really working fine, and BIG ADVANTAGE, very LEAN and MEAN on 16:9 / 16:10 monitors.
In my setup, I only have 1 bar at the top for application menu and status icons. Launcher is set to auto-hide. No waste of screen estate.
What I find always funny is people with billions of application launch icons, or an application task bar that eats 20% of their screen, then complain about bad UI. The point of Unity is that it disappear immediately as soon as you don't need it. That's basically the best it can do. Simple and efficient.
Mac OS has been like this since System 1. And it makes sense; whatever you're doing, its menu is going to be in the same place. Fitts' law indicates that the most quickly accessed targets on any computer display are the four corners of the screen.
I've read the question 5 and its answers about global menu superiority.
I would like to emphasize this:
- I've been using Macintosh, Unix workstations, MS PC (DOS,Win3.1 up to Win8), Linux PC with various WM/Desktop, etc.
- Global menu was fine for me on Macintosh Classic 9-inch display, for any task.
- Global menu is painful and irritating on 24-inch display, for most of the creative tasks.
I suspect that this is not only a matter of how long the cursor travel though the screen, but also about how much you have to adjust your gaze on the area requiring your attention.
Fitts' law fails to address that point, even if you can do things quicker it might not be as productive if it's uncomfortable and tiring.
Regarding GUI, Apple has failed on several points with nowdays huge displays, for instance it tooks them years to allow window size adjustment on any border (instead of a tiny triangle on bottom right). The feature comes with Lion in 2011... That's a shame.
Why not just use Debian?
But the bigger the screen, the stupider a global menu becomes. Users more likely have more than one app open at a time, and they're more likely to be unmaximized - either stacked, tiled or some other arrangement. It's a pain to have to activate an app to see its menu. It's a pain to then haul the mouse to the top to navigate it's menu. I bet if someone ran a mousemeter comparing the two systems that the global menu would involve way more travel.
Therefore, there should be an option to control this behaviour. It should have been there from the beginning in fact. The same goes for those ridiculous elevator style scrollbars in Ubuntu. They're great for saving space when you need to save space but boy are they unintuitive and fiddly. If someone has a hi resolution screen the scrollbars should always be visible and easy to locate.
If you're on a macbook, one finger is a "left click" and two fingers is a "right click". Using a keyboard modifier would be odd and uncomfortable IMO. Go to System Preferences -> Trackpad -> Point & Click to enable this if someone's disabled it.
For scroll bars, you can go to System Preferences -> Show Scroll Bars -> Always if you wish. I have mine enabled that way too.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Replace ios and OSX with Windows and Windows 8 and you have the EXACT SAME arguments for what Microsoft has been doing.
You forgot some real problems though. No way to disable out of control scrolling on touchpads and mice. go ahead and use Google maps with the "super mouse" it is constantly zooming at insane rates.
Zero application support from Apple. Garage band and iWork has some huge bugs and when you contact support they just refer you to the forums where users try to stumble through it. At least Microsoft will let you give them a credit card number and make a fake attempt at helping you while you pay for a tech support newbie to look on the internet for answers while you are on the phone.
I love OSX and apple, It is zero effort to maintain compared to windows and honestly Linux is currently in a broken all to hell state for desktop use. (Linux does this in a 4 year cycle, it will come back again) But it's not without it's nasty festering warts and zits.
The problem is all operating systems right now are utter crap. From server to desktop to mobile. They all suck, and no company or group has any interest in making it not suck , they just want to add new shiny features in hopes of distracting you from the suck that has existed in the OS for the past 5 years.
and dont get me started with the Unholy abomination of "in app purchases" that has taken off. The funny part is using piracy makes it easier. GarageBand on OSX most people can not sucessfully download the lessons or added content, Apple devs half assed the download portion of the code. So I go to pirate bay and find a Pirated pack of all the content and install it. Worked better than fighting over and over to get what I paid for to install because the developers cant bother to finish debugging a program before release.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
ubuntu is a steaming turd because they tried to remove the scroll bars, I see freaking Chrome and Firefox also doing this stupid trick as well on all platforms.
It makes me want to beat developers with a sack of doorknobs.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
this is the title the parent post should read
The problem is choice.
Users don't mind changing, but they want to revert or change thing that don't like. Ubuntu and gnome3 are 3 of the main examples where the choice is removed from you, because they "know better" and "it's too hard for normal users". This of course created rage among the "advanced" (or simply older) users, even more when most of the time the only solution is a radical change of distro/desktop environment.
What is good for one guy might not be for the next one, without a proper fallback, the "next guy" is left out in the cold
Higuita
I always thought linux users were not afraid of change and welcomed the new. Sometimes I think some linux users are a bunch of luddites with strong
right wing conservative leanings. Who would have thought.
It wasn't new, it was Mac OS from 1984.
Who's the conservative luddite now smart guy?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Sometimes I think some linux users are a bunch of luddites with strong right wing conservative leanings
and liberals wonder why others perceive them as arrogant, totalitarian, histrionic, narcissists
How the fuck can people take a discussion about a UI element to fucking politics? It's not even a good political discussion, it the same stereotyped shit we read about everyday, where there are only two fucking views on each subject and they are both ludicrously inflexible. I thought for certain no one would fall for the obvious, weak flamebait of the first post, but lo and behold, the discussion has degenerated into things like
Of course, that's why you elect politicians who'd love to stamp out free speech, right? To make it my problem, and make up for the fact your arguments are without merit?
Come on, tell me the truth: you guys disliked the new design and are poisoning the content, too, so as to encourage our transition to a better place, right? Because no one can be that unproductively disruptive unless on purpose.
I guess people don't learn keyboard shortcuts any more... :-/
Application folders are as poorly thought out as Program Files was. Here's why:
;-) :D
Path inconsistency - Crack open a terminal and try to run your app from there. I'm sure environment variables have a length restriction, even if it's really long
Lack of security - try to patch all those apps using the same non-core shared libraries, you'll have one hell of a time as you'll need to either manually copy files or wait on the vendor!
Disk space wastage - see above!
Power-user hell - let's say you can do a little bit of coding, enough to work around a few small bugs; tried compiling larger XCode projects without manually replicating the dev environment?
Now for other flaws in modern OS X:
App Store - This is a poor man's APT/YUM repository. You can't mirror it so if your Internet is unavailable you can't install apps, plus you need to hand over personal info to use it!
Global menus - Modern systems have many applications running at one time, you need to activate the window before you can access the menu, thus increasing click count if multitasking.
Style inconsistency - OS X apps are inflexibly styled; so when the designers of OS X change fashion, the apps don't match. Compare this to most GTK/Qt apps, centrally rethemed easily!
Single mouse pointer - Linux and Windows can use multiple mice/tablets/touchpads independently with each having their own mouse pointers. Mac OS X assumes one pointer even today!
They should get rid of the rest of the annoying Mac rip off features too. And MS should ditch that hot corners crap that nobody likes on Apple computers in the first place.
Global menus
Mac OS has been like this since System 1. And it makes sense; whatever you're doing, its menu is going to be in the same place. Fitts' law indicates that the most quickly accessed targets on any computer display are the four corners of the screen.
First, the corners of the screen are the fastest to access merely because they require less dexterity. And your menu button must actually occupy the most extreme pixel to work for this purpose, and the menu buttons do not. Perhaps they meet the edge of the screen, but I'm not even sure about that (I don't think they do).
Second, the paradigm of universal menu location is a violation of basic psychology. Our brains prefer that things which are related are grouped together. E.g. if I have two windows open side-by-side, and I have the right-hand window selected, why are my menus adjacent to the window I am not using? My mouse, my eyes, and the scope of my perception are locked on the window at hand. Claiming I can move my mouse faster to some distant area on the screen does not seem like a good enough reason. (That you are used to it and don't want to learn a new paradigm is a valid reason to keep it, though.)
Single mouse click
Mac OS has supported multiple mouse buttons for at least 16 years.
I'm pretty sure he meant one click to open a program. (Or was the statement damaged in translation?) To be fair, I'm not entirely sold on the double-click paradigm, despite being thoroughly imersed. (Don't Macs use double-click to open desktop/folder contents still? And everyone does one-click dashboard/quickstart/panel open AFAIK.)
Hardwired application dependency locations (the whole point of application folders is to stop that!)
Wait, what? Apps install into /Applications by default, but the system works just fine with app in ~/Applications. Beyond that, moving apps around is making things needlessly complicated for yourself. Even then, the vast majority of apps are self-contained bundles and can be run from anywhere.
Don't Macs have a $PATH variable? If not, I consider this a huge flaw, but I'm pretty sure gp is clueless? (Why would Apple remove such a basic feature?)
I gotta say thats a good point. I've been using unity as my UI at work and hadn't thought about the universal application list being missing. Is there something that can be installed to deal with that while still using Unity?
There are about 10 things wrong with OSX and they are all random design crap Jobs picked -
Global menus,
This goes back about 30 years to the original Mac, which came with a 512x384 monitor. A global menu made eminent sense.
Menus should have been solved by now.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
In 2010 Ubuntu was the best shot the Linux community had at getting serious market penetration into desktop and laptop computers. With GNOME 2 it wasn't as pretty as Windows Aero but the user interface was similar enough that the switch was easy for regular home computer users.
Then Canonical switches gears to Unity. The first few releases were very buggy, and even after it was quite stable the user interface changes annoyed people. So Ubuntu ceased to be the default suggestion for a Linux version to try to Linux newbies, and there really wasn't any new contender to replace it.
Linux Mint gained popularity rapidly from that, as it offered user interfaces and customization options in line with what dissatisfied Ubuntu users wanted. But Mint doesn't have the same chance at capturing a significant piece of the standard desktop market. Their recommended upgrade process is still a fresh re-install ( see http://community.linuxmint.com... ), which means it only works for technically skilled users.
Now, Ubuntu and Unity are open source software and Canonical is a business, so they have every right to change whatever they want for any reason or no stated reason at all. So I do not now and did not then hate Mark Shuttleworth or the Ubuntu developers or Canonical employees for the change. I just feel like a great opportunity for Linux to enter mainstream use was wasted and all that momentum that Canonical and Ubuntu built in user base and press support was splintered.
The next great opportunity for Linux to reach user in mainstream desktop computers is probably SteamOS, and while I admit that I'll probably run it myself, I am not pleased that a proprietary digital rights managed software distribution platform may be the lever that makes Linux mainstream on home computers. ( Really, I should put my money where my mouth is and support one of the Ubuntu alternatives that could become equally good for new users with some work. Fedora? OpenSUSE? Debian? )
And to be fair to Canonical and Ubuntu, I think mainstream (non power-user) computer users will be mostly on mobile in the future. So even if I dislike the Unity user interface, I can understand trying to invent some alternative to existing desktop environments that would work well on mobile devices. I understand where they're trying to go, even if I think the direction they took is a mistake.
That would be nice.
I always thought linux users were not afraid of change and welcomed the new. Sometimes I think some linux users are a bunch of luddites with strong right wing conservative leanings. Who would have thought.
How does this one preference (each app having its own menu, instead of a single global menu) indicate any political leaning?
How do you get a 3 for Insightful? You are attacking the AC, which was me by the way. Spineless fairy? Special snowflake? Can't handle criticism? Elect politicians who'd love to stamp out free speech? Arguments without merit? Look in the mirror and tell me what you see. Wow. We are talking about a user interface. It works for some but not for others. I stated that it was nice to give the users the ability to choose between the two. What is the big deal? This is not some life or death situation. It is just a personal preference. I do like change and am willing to try new interfaces. I have used most of them over the past 20 years. I just happen to like Unity. And the global menu is no big deal to me anymore. That is all I was saying. You, sir, went off the deep end with your response.
I would have made the same arguments epyT-R did whether you post as AC or under your own name. If you make baseless accusations that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is a right-wing highly conservative Luddite, then you've lost your right to complain when answered in kind. Resistance to change isn't limited to any political party. You just used a variant of the Godwin argument.
How'd you know there were a liberal? Bias much? And then you go on to insult all liberals. Riiiight.
I don't know. Ask that AC.
Uh, ok, like another reply says, how often do you need to look at every application on your system?
Here are a few scenarios that come to mind.
1) Need to run a specific application.
a) Click the Dash, type a few letters, click the application or,
b) Click the Dash, click the categories view, filter by category, click the application or,
c) Find your application, drag it to the Launcher for quick access
2) Need to see all "Internet" applications.
a) Click the Dash, click the categories view, filter by category
3) Need to launch an application, but don't remember it's name, only something vague about it.
a) Click the Dash, type a few letters (not necessarily the beginning of the name), go aha!, click the application
4) Need to find a document that you were working on, but don't quite remember the name or where you put it.
a) Click the Dash, type a few letters (not necessarily the beginning of the name), go aha!, click the document
On the classic interface, 1b and 2a are possible. The rest are not. So while Unity may require a couple more keypresses in some comparisons, it seems more capable and flexible to me as a desktop.
Now ads are annoying, yes. I don't like that. Thankfully you can disable it. I also don't like the global menu, which this article is about. They seem to be changing it.
Ah, and then you one upped yourself with a spineless fairy comment. Dude, take it down a notch. You're being a bit of an ass, and your own biases are showing a bit. You're also displaying the exact behavior that you're accusing them of. After all, only spineless fairies rush to silence criticism of yourself or others, right? I realize this might offend people like you who can't handle criticism, but that's not their problem.
I don't even know why you brought politics into it.... Anyway, what they said wasn't that bad. What you said was over the top. I'm just some random dude reading through posts. Theirs was.... mildly inpolite. Your response was off the charts.
Ubuntu 14.04, or Ubuntu 8.1?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Why would "Fitts's Law" be applicable to a global menu, even if it mattered (it doesn't)? The menu isn't in the corners. I've also never met anyone who took it on faith that their mouse pointer got to a point on the screen without looking.
Why does a theoretical benefit in motor functionality (easier to go up-left than up-right for right-handed users) matter when (again) it's about where the user is _looking_, not what is imperceptibly "easier" for their hand to carry out?
Why are so many of you idiots still going on about the Windows 8 start screen when you clearly haven't known how to use Windows since at least the ’90s? Clicking through trees of redundant folders has not been the optimal way to use Windows in a long, long time. Windows 8 makes actual common use cases for the former start menu functionality easier, and even improves things if you want to click-click-click like a baby as well. Windows 8.1 takes a step backward by tacking on a start button that provides no useful functionality while taking up space on the taskbar.
Unlike the Windows 8 start screen, the stupid Mac Launchpad provides nothing whatsoever.
It's amazing that you think such stupid thoughts are worth sharing.
Why oh why do people lend these arguments any credence? Change is not automatically awesome because it's "change". Unity is a shitty UI...just like Win8. They changed with the menu's so it's more difficult to find and launch applications. So now making things harder is good change? And it's also somehow related to my political beliefs? Why was this post even modded up? It's ridiculous.
Only users aren't "bound" to Metro on Windows 8. I've been running it for a year and aside from the idiotic default associations (which you change once and forget about) and the start screen (which is actually a huge improvement over the start menu, although "boot to desktop" should have been included from the start), I haven't _had_ to use any of the Metro shit once.
The hate on Metro is way overblown. Microsoft (for once) tried to make a really bold, innovative move. They botched the job of educating users on the changes, and didn't quite get there with the Metro/Desktop integration (they should really look to Chrome on Windows 8 for how that should have been handled), but it's (at worst) a little different and a little better than Windows 7.
It's certainly a whole lot better than Mac OS X.
Because it was originally designed for netbooks.
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
I'd rather have the global menu. It's a lot cleaner than having menu bars in every damn window.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
Agreed. Global menus are horrible. They most definitely waste time when app switching a lot and using the menus. Newsflash: most consumers don't know simple keyboard shortcuts.
Ideally an OS would let the user choose.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Because it was designed for netbooks. Though, I think it takes up way too much space on a netbook.
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
It's not just bandwagons I think. A lot of change (esp. in the software world), I think, is driven by the desire to make oneself seem relevant and needed. In other words, it's "make-work". Instead of a change happening because there is a genuine need for the change, or the change really is a better way of doing things, it happens because there's a bunch of people sitting around looking for something to do, and they need to justify their existence. In a company, you can't have a big team of engineers sitting around doing nothing because they've already done a great job building something, and now aren't needed (the other work that needs doing isn't quite in their skillset). So they have a choice between resigning, or finding something else to do. So we get "Widget 2.0! New and improved!!!". (It's not just the workers, it's really their bosses in middle management who need to justify their salaries by leading ever-larger teams with ever-larger budgets.)
At the corporate level, this stuff also happens because of the consumer-driven culture which craves new stuff, and the existence of the desire to sell new stuff. If a company sells you Widget 1.0 and it's excellent and does everything you need, why would you buy another one? Once everyone has one ("market saturation" has been achieved), the company can't continue to exist (or more importantly these days, to grow, since not growing is seen as being equivalent to "dying") since they're not selling anything. So they make a "roadmap" and continue to evolve the product line, adding more and more features and making changes, to convince people to buy a new one and throw out their old one. Case in point: Windows 8. Why would you throw out Windows 7 if it does everything you need and you're happy with it? Simple: because Windows 8 is out with a shiny new UI that's "revolutionary". Of course, things didn't quite pan out as MS expected there, but that was much of the intent. With many products, there's only so much you can do with real features before the product does everything its buyers need, so the company turns to reinventing the wheel, in our case meaning redoing the UI to be "more modern", even though the old one was just fine, and in fact more attractive than the ugly new one (this isn't just MS I'm talking about here, it's many UIs; look at the ugly new Gmail UI for example).
What's really sad is the pathetic sycophants who defend this constant wheel-reinvention and change for change's sake, calling anyone who objects a "luddite". This doesn't mean of course that old ways are always better (what idiot wants to go back to cooperative multitasking, or worse, no multitasking?), but we've reached a point with our software these days where there really isn't much improvement to be had, so it seems everyone is screwing around with UIs to try to make themselves relevant. (Also, there are improvements to be had in the software realm, but they're outside the skillset of people who work with UIs.)
And why would efficient use of screen real estate be applicable only to netbooks? I would like the majority of my screen to be used by what I am currently working on, not a bunch of user interface clutter.
Also, note this statement in your own Wikipedia reference,
"Canonical announced it had engineered Unity for desktop computers as well and would make Unity the default shell for Ubuntu in version 11.04."
You can't have it both ways. If you want one strong leader, you have to go with their decisions whether you like them or not. If Canonical refuses to offer more options (because "they'd be too confusing to regular users"), then either you suck it up and deal with the poor workflow, or you abandon them and their "strong leadership" for a different choice.
"Strong leadership" is what lead to Soviet-style socialism, where everyone had maybe 5 choices for shoes and that was it. Freedom and diversity go hand-in-hand, and even though they're seemingly less efficient, you avoid people pushing one-size-fits-all solutions that don't work well for almost anyone.
I do agree that excessive fragmentation in Linux-land is bad, but it's a byproduct of the freedom available there. Luckily, there are strong attempts to consolidate things that should be, such as the recent moves to standardize on systemd. UIs do not need to be standardized so much as lower-level services. You struggling with Unity is not helping the Linux cause, unless maybe you're using it to run around and evangelize it to newbs and convert people away from the proprietary platforms.
European unity is actually making some real strides these days, though it seems the northern countries and the southern countries are not getting along that well. But compared to 100 years ago, the northern/western countries are almost working together as one (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, etc.). The difference is, today's unity was developed through a slow, bottom-up process, with all the governed consenting to this union and joining it voluntarily. Much like the US's early days, really.
Where unity works out poorly is when it's forced from the top-down, by one of those "strong leaders" the OP refers to. Stalin is a prime example here. When this happens, minorities and other groups get marginalized, and after a while (after the central power decays sufficiently, largely due to the union not really being that effective due to the lack of "buy-in"), get pissed off and the whole thing implodes suddenly.
Canonical is an example of the latter, not the former. Except that the Linux ecosystem by its nature doesn't tolerate egotistical dictators that well, so when people get pissed off, they just switch to an alternate or fork.
I'm not the GP, but I'd think if anything, a single global menu is like a powerful federal government, something that (D) would love, while different menus for different applications would be like more devolved power, something that (R) would love. Just saying....
Actually, on the Mac, you can't click above the menu items at the top of the screen. Clicking at the edge of the screen activates the control.
As a Mac user it used to be infuriating that with other common desktop environments if you dragged the mouse to the edge of the screen they would miss the button by one pixel. Now it's common on systems using other common desktop environments, too.
The luddite, rightwing conservative comment was taken the wrong way, clearly. But than again, what could I expect. I read most of the comments and have to say that I didn't intend them to be flamebait as the original post was flagged. Poor choice of words on my part obviously.
--Maybe I should have just said people that are resistant to change.
I will stand by that. Whether the change is good or not is not the point. The fact that someone is trying to change, trying to light out on something new is what I should have expressed. Maybe what Unity is trying to do will in the end fail. Stuff happens. Not everything succeeds.
But trying to break out of the mold is what is important. I just did a shitty job of expressing that in the first post. The fact the Canonical is backtracking shows at least that they see their 'mistake'.
And here I am again, saying that it is nice to have the choice.
I realize now that I used the wrong phrase to express that. I enjoyed reading the responses though. What I meant to say and what the crowd heard was interesting to me, not necessarily to you of course. We don't have the benefit of being in the same room having this conversation. There is no eye contact, no body language, no chance to change mid-stream. The words just sit there on the page. With all there faults on display and with no recourse.
I didn't mean to light any one up. I didn't mean to offend anyones sensibilities. Going down the rabbit hole with perceived intent and then running with it only showed your own bias. And I enjoyed seeing that. But that wasn't what I was going for.
You don't have to go to Gnome.
If you've installed Ubuntu, just install Cardapio for a drop-down menu of all programs in the familiar Accessories, Internet, Office, Games, etc. categories.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
When you have an idea (and this applies especially to software, where it's easy to run this course), a good idea is to run an experiment -- see if your idea actually holds water.
100 million kudos points, however, to the person who recognises the experiment for what is is (an experiment) and has the kahunas to recoginise failure and roll back.
Personally, I don't like global menus, But if they had worked for most users, then that alone would have given them value -- and I'm free to not accept and work around them. I, for one, applaud the ability of Ubuntu and Shuttleworth to run an experiment, recognise failure and go back to what is known to work. It shows respect for the user.
Fact is, if Linux users were truly conservative, that is wanting legacy and full control, they'd go back to command-line or use Arch Linux or minimal Debian. But the real issue here is that Classic Gnome vs. Unity, just as Metro vs. Windows 7 in that world, is not just a matter of being resistant to changer. Shuttleworth had this dream of running Linux on tablets and mobile phones, a dream not really yet realized, at least it hasn't caught fire. The way he did things was to try to cram the changes down everyone's throat, including keyboard and desktop users. On the desktop, Unity and Metro don't rally make sense because they add annoying extra steps to get to an item that a global menu achieves in fewer steps.
I installed U. 12.04 and ran Unity and the largest problem came on two areas, finding a particular application by name where I forgot the name and keeping a static order of things when Dash tries, social media style, to anticipate whaat you want, and gets is wrong, which is frequent. That effort to think for you is one of the annoying features, and is going to be a bigger problem as advertisers get more and more into the interface to try to guess what you are going to do next. It is like the frustration one often geels with Google search and with most social media sites and is why the problem is likely to get worse, and is going to get a bigger backlash from power users.
I love to make attacks on social media and efforts by business marketers to try to tell us what is in our interfaces. For that reason I say "Fuck Beta!".
Debian is a good basis for other better designed derivatives, but in its efforts to be everything for everybody it has a tricky install and configuration process with poor checking and a lack of orthagonal processes to upgrade. I can be more precise, no pun. I tried installing Debian 7 on an old legacy machine. It went fine. The machine has a wireless dongle on its USB port, but something happened in the install scripts that skipped the install of the wireless stuff, or at least it wasn't successful, no wireless, and using Synaptic had not helped me to find and install the missing packages. So, there is a lack of symmetry with the install process and the upgrade process. The metapackage information is not readily available, especially if all you have the an install which has failed connectivity with the internet.
On the same system I installed Knoppix 7.2 which went well and automatically found the wireless dongle and installed the right drivers. The only problem with the install is that I haven't found that way you disable the default login, that system. based on Debian 7, is intended to be a rescue system, and I admire Klaus Knopper and what he has done with it, very very much.
I has occurred to me that I could compare the package names from the Knoppix install with those on the Debian 7 install and see if I can spot the missing wireless packages. That seems like a lot of work, especailly when that should be a wireless metapackage to check.
ubuntu is a steaming turd because they tried to remove the scroll bars, I see freaking Chrome and Firefox also doing this stupid trick as well on all platforms.
It makes me want to beat developers with a sack of doorknobs.
On what platforms does Chrome not have scrollbars? I'm using Chrome right now and it has one.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.