Slashdot Mirror


Canonical Founder Talks About Ubuntu Desktop Switching From Unity To GNOME, And Focus On Cloud (google.com)

Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth on Friday talked about the move to switch Ubuntu's desktop user interface from Unity to GNOME, and putting a stop to development of Ubuntu software for phones and tablet: I would like to thank all of you for your spirit and intellect and energy in the Unity8 adventure. [...] Many elements of the code in the Ubuntu Phone project continue -- snaps grew out of our desire to ship apps reliably and efficiently and securely, the unity8 code itself will continue to be useful for UBports and other projects. And the ideas that we have pushed for are now spreading too. Finally, I should celebrate that Ubuntu consists of so many overlapping visions of personal computing, that we have the ability to move quickly to support the Ubuntu GNOME community with all the resources of Canonical to focus on stability, upgrades, integration and experience. That's only possible because of the diversity of shells in the Ubuntu family, and I am proud of all of our work across that full range.

80 comments

  1. Replacing unity with gnome by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is like washing shit off with piss.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Indians in the audience view that as basic street maintenance.

    2. Re:Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering one is antiseptic, that's not bad.

    3. Re:Replacing unity with gnome by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. That's an urban myth.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu is good for driver support but that's it. Debian/CentOS are the best OS. You don't even need Ubuntu of you purchase good hardware.

      Shuttleworth had his head really far up ass when he did Ubuntu phone and unity. The least he could have done is made gnome better.

    5. Re:Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/09/27/will-urine-pee-cure-nail-fungus-athletes-foot/

    6. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DESIGNATED

    7. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you go scuba diving, got stinged and no medicine is on hand, well, the best you can do is piss on it. it works.

    8. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Americans in the audience view that as Sex.

    9. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. Clean water does the exact same job.

    10. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Good job finding clean water in most of the world.

    11. Re: Replacing unity with gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be only open source graphic card drivers for Ubuntu they are slow and unreliable

  2. Please explain by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I am definitely not a novice Linux user. But I'm just that a user not a Linux developer. I develop applications that happen to run on Linux and other machines.

    I've never formally understood what the difference between Unity and Gnome and KDE really is. decades ago I used KDE and loved it's crisp germanic feel. I installed Unity a couple of times by mistake and always found myself puzzled how to get a terminal up or lauch applications or really do anything. Randomly clicking stuff sometimes produced results but it was forever a mystery. I've run Damnsmall linux (XCFE) and liked that. I've used redhat on servers but never really liked RPM. As well as rasberry pi noobs. And these days I just awlays head straight for mint.

    Mint makes everything easy.

    But really what's the difference??? the only think I see as an end user is
    1) Unity . baffling desktop
    2) .Debian: you get apt-get
    3) . Redhat: RPM
    Kde used to be good but lost out.

    But I don't really understand what it means to use gnome. What changes? where files go? what sort of API apls can call? I really don't know
    enlighten me.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Please explain by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 4, Informative

      The main difference between Gnome and KDE is the underlying GDI & widget toolkits. KDE uses QT from Trolltech and GNOME uses GTK which is developed as a sub-project of GNOME. Of course their custom browsers and mail clients are different and have different names. The desktop file management paradigm is different and so is the menu/toolbar location. Politically, they are run by very different types of people without much cross-pollination.

      The package management is a difference at the system/OS level, not the desktop, but you knew that. Neither "lost out", in my opinion because they were never much worth using in the first place. Unix variants are all about the CLI. If you want a consistent GUI with a benevolent tyrant running things and keeping it all standard, go buy a mac or run RISC-OS. Linux has been failing at that for more than 20 years now, despite the "takeover the world" mantra.

    2. Re:Please explain by erapert · · Score: 2

      1) Unity . baffling desktop
      2) .Debian: you get apt-get
      3) . Redhat: RPM
      Kde used to be good but lost out.

      WTF am I reading???? Talk about apples and oranges-- you're comparing desktop environments to entire Linux distributions!

    3. Re: Please explain by verstuurhetmij · · Score: 1

      Thats called an abstraction, pretty common way yo compare stuff. Certainly if those are the inportant things fir their yse cases.

    4. Re:Please explain by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I think they are referring to the decision making process, which is easier overall, which comes default with the most comfortable environment. I swapped from Kubuntu to Ubuntu and then Unity came out and I switched back to Kubuntu because trying to force unity back to gnome, was harder than just installing Kubuntu instead, yeah seriously, just that touch more thinking and effort was enough to swap because the choice was there and I simply made the easiest one at the time. Might swap back to Ubuntu with Unity gone or try another distribution (haven't done that in quite a while). So what you are reading is with a swap to Linux there are all sorts of choices and swapping from one to another is really arbitrary decision, choices on which one, are easy to do. Install are quick reconfigurations are not too bad, depending on how much you customise the desk top (they come back when you swap over which is fun).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Please explain by Burz · · Score: 1

      The main reason who Unity (and Gnome 3) are hated so much by experienced users is they both mis-interpreted the Mac OS X launch bar interface. With the later, the user always had a definite list of apps (in the Applications folder) to fall back on. But Unity and Gnome sought to force you to use search and force you to pin regularly-used apps to their launchers. In a typical Gnome setup, this means you have to type some very odd words to find what you want.

      Search-and-pin makes a nice supplement to a heirarchical menu/list. However, it sucks badly as a wholesale replacement. I used to think that Canonical was good at understanding and imitating Mac features (like launchd), but I no longer think so.

  3. Ubuntu is dead by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 0

    Initially, Ubuntu was really what opened the way for Linux on desktops for more or less average users. Yes, then convulsive attempts to somehow get back the invested money accompanied by bouts of NIH syndrome, the apogee of which was the notorious Mir, but Mark raised the bar of friendliness. Now, yes, *ubuntu (including the letters k and x), has many alternatives, but when instead of gratitude to the person who spent a lot of money and time on Linux, you see this, it becomes insulting for humanity. Canonical's innovations, of course, for the most part are questionable. Yes, when the project stubbornly continued to be unprofitable, and the attempt to repulse costs due to a fairly easily disconnected adware was met with wild opposition (which, however, it is easy enough to understand) NIH began to pull the blanket on itself to the edge of Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. All this, of course, is sad, but the classic OpenSource model of monetization "money for support" works better for difficult to master and configure products, and not for what "launched - and works." Mark began with the fact that he began to bring the desktop Linux to this state, and this in the financial plan - the occupation is quite hopeless...

    1. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Junta · · Score: 2

      Probably less dead now...

      Ubuntu's challenge is they had success by being 'boring'. They collected the recent stable releases at a given point in time and released them in a well managed distribution. They were more aggressive than Debian, but not as over the top as RedHat/Fedora. (Fedora strategy is a slight step up from RedHat before. RedHat before would go to pre-release major software and then *never update*, Fedora at least avoids pre-release software, though they do embrace major changes whenever they feel like it, meaning it's not a stable desktop experience).

      Ubuntu's problems crept in as they got these weird ass ambitions. They were going to make their own DE, their own UI design, their own display server. They didn't have good ideas and they really didn't have the talent to even execute on those ideas very well.

      Of course it is ostensibly a business endeavor, and as a business endeavor, it has never found a viable path.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu's challenge is they had success by being 'boring'. They collected the recent stable releases at a given point in time and released them in a well managed distribution. (...) Of course it is ostensibly a business endeavor, and as a business endeavor, it has never found a viable path.

      Ubuntu put the desktop first, Debian and Fedora were just testbeds for the server edition. I remember one of my first good impressions was that they had a splash screen while Debian just scrolled text. Because who cares on a server, right? The problem is that the desktop by itself doesn't create any money. People download the ISO and all you get is complaints when it doesn't work. You don't get a dollar for actually making it work. It's a nice way to get popularity and brand recognition, but the bait needs a hook to reel in some money.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Junta · · Score: 1

      I would say Debian isn't a test bed for server or anything, it's just a project about open source enthusiasm, with a pretty conservative tilt.

      Fedora is in effect the test bed for technologies going into RHEL, but I think it's perhaps fair to say it's the playground for the developers to indulge their enthusiasm. Working on a stable OS that business customers want is soul crushing for developers that want to try new and different things, Fedora is a good way for them to satisfy the need to deliver novel code aggressively. This means that if you are a user fanatically obsessed with the latest and greatest, but not quite into building the upstream packages yourself, Fedora isn't such a bad distribution. Of course, that's not too many people that indiscriminately care about getting the bleeding edge of every package, versus a mostly stable and 'boring' environment for most or all of the software, and specific repoes or building yourself for some key projects if those specific ones are of interest.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Well, their 'weird ass ambition' was to capitalize on the movement toward mobile devices and get there first with a 'Continuum-like' UI. Except that they didn't. And now that Microsoft has pretty much lost the mobile race to Android - and various desktop Android options seem inevitable, there's not much point in pursuing a new mobile platform to power a linux desktop. That doesn't mean that the Linux desktop is dead. It can still do anything a Chromebook can do (don't laugh - that meets the needs of a pretty big subset of the desktop market) - and more, which real desktop apps for most standard functions.

      The Linux desktop is never going to be a replacement for Windows - for people who need some specifically native Windows apps. But it can fill in pretty nicely for a Mac in terms of functionality, and for Windows for people who don't have Windows-specific needs (and that's a growing subset). Even Windows (i.e. Windows 10/Metro) is not a replacement for Windows - in that you can't do much on a Metro-only system that you can't also do on a Chromebook or Android laptop.

      But Ubuntu still serves a useful purpose. As a starting point for other distros, it has become pretty much the de-facto Linux OS that has been needed all along. If your distro is based off of a UBU LTR and uses the UBU repositories (i.e. Mint), you're users are assured that most every Linux-available app will be available for your distro - without the need for special expertise to get it to work. That's an important thing. And if the move back to GNOME restores Ubuntu to its former role as the default newbie distro, then it will continue to be around to keep all those other distros viable. Either way, the move away from Unity (and especially Mir) means all those Ubuntu forks no longer need to search for something else to re-fork off of.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On paper this is good, but Fedora has turned into an echo chamber for a certain set of Gnome and Freedesktop project devs.

      End result is that if you want to use anything from these devs, you have to use everything from these devs because they keep altering APIs in lockstep. They have no concept of a slower release cycle than the code churn they themselves produce.

    6. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canonical at every turn tried to cooperate with existing projects, but got stymied when offering suggestions and code.

      The basic problem is that FOSS projects have become overly focused on brand and identity.

      Why the F do Wayland have a logo?! It is a lib sitting between the kernel and the UI toolkit/compositor!

    7. Re:Ubuntu is dead by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      And Debian itself changed too, at the time Ubuntu was introduced Debian was stuck in it's longest release cycle ever at possibly the worst possible time. A time when auto configuration was starting to mature. A time when SATA had just been introduced.

      But a few years later the world had changed. Debian got onto a stable release schedule of just-under two years . New hardware was much less of an issue due to consolidation in the chipset/graphics markets and the move from add-on SATA controllers that used chipset-specific drivers to SATA ports integrated in the chipset and supported through either IDE emulation or AHCI.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Junta · · Score: 1

      While silly, all sorts of things have little logos (OpenSSH has a logo, for example). I wouldn't have even known Wayland had a logo until mentioned.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:Ubuntu is dead by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, their 'weird ass ambition' was to capitalize on the movement toward mobile devices and get there first with a 'Continuum-like' UI.

      Of the OS projects, only Canonical and Microsoft got caught up in this worry. The reality was that things weren't moving, it's that mobile was augmenting the experience. I doubt you can find a Linux user from 2006 who ditched their desktop for a phone or tablet, for example. Yes, some very casual users might have managed to switch totally to phone or desktop, but everyone I know will at least still open up a laptop from time to time. The market changes from one of aggressive evolution to plateau coinciding with the meteoric rise of phones was mistaken for people throwing out their laptops for phones.

      The biggest question is whether Ubuntu will truly carry on. It's structured as a business, and as a business has *never* made any sense. In pursuit of being carried on as a business, will it be changed. Can it transition to being a community project rather than business driven?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  4. I see no mention of cloud in the article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "focus (is) on stability, upgrades, integration and experience."

    I say, good for you Mark. It takes a big person to admit defeat and move on!

    1. Re:I see no mention of cloud in the article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we screwed the pooch with Unity, and we screwed it good for several years. pity the little people don't understand _MY_ grand vision for it."

    2. Re:I see no mention of cloud in the article! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      He had no choice but to admit defeat. He's positioning the business for either an outside investment or an IPO (in other words, he wants to cash out). As for redirecting resources, some departments are being hit with layoffs of up to 60%.

      Other failures:

      • Ubuntu Android emulator
      • UbuntuTV Hardware TV - a ripoff of SammyTV open source project
      • Ubuntu Smartphone - remember Ubuntu Edge?
      • Ubuntu tablet
      • Ubuntu ONE Music Store - RIP June 2014
      • Ubuntu ONE Cloud Storage - RIP June 2014

      And of course absolutely horrific color schemes ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:I see no mention of cloud in the article! by nnull · · Score: 1

      It's quite sad, as I was really hoping for an Ubuntu phone, as I wanted something else than Android or Apple, but looks like we won't ever see another one. It's not like they didn't have sales and a lot of people really wanted to buy one, a lot of people wanted to develop for it, but you simply couldn't buy one because they didn't make enough of them. Stupid decisions like that made it a complete failure.

    4. Re:I see no mention of cloud in the article! by Junta · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu trying to run as a viable business? Ok, now it's really screwed as a distro.

      Canonical never could figure out a profitable way forward (hence all those failed experiments). They had some brand value in a niche market, but could never figure out how to monetize it.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:I see no mention of cloud in the article! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The real problem was that the manufacturer who supplied Ubuntu phones also sold a more powerful Android version for less. Anyone who really, really wanted an Ubuntu phone could just root it. Same as anyone who wants a non-Windows computer can just re-format a Windows box and install whatever they want - for less.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Yawn. Back to Fluxbox. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

    Linux users want a new distro every time the wallpaper changes. Meanwhile the handful of grown-ups who remember what Unix is don't spend their time focused on the desktop widgets, they focus on the CLI and on C programming - where the action is at for geeks of merit. So, anyhow, sorry grandma, you'll have to change your desktop again.

    I'm surprised they got around to it. Don't they still have some more broken python scripts to write and isn't there a text-based log for them to convert to binary somewhere?

    Save your "but everyone is using Linux & Ubuntu these days, nobody cares about you BSD greybeards" comment. I'd point out that it's both Argumentum ad numerum and Argumentum ad populum, but then I'd have to explain logic and translate the Latin.

    1. Re: Yawn. Back to Fluxbox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can use vi, edit with vi. I sure as hell don't code with it. Graybeards coding on the CLI are dinosaurs. Oh great a new text field in fixed font courier! That's just what I wanted. Thanks Einstein!

      BSD has and always will suck.

    2. Re:Yawn. Back to Fluxbox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the handful of grown-ups who remember what Unix is don't spend their time focused on the desktop widgets, they focus on the CLI and on C programming - where the action is at for geeks of merit.

      Well if you're preemptively defending against informal logical fallacies, perhaps you shouldn't be using the "No true scotsman" fallacy there.

    3. Re:Yawn. Back to Fluxbox. by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the handful of grown-ups who remember what Unix is don't spend their time focused on the desktop widgets, they focus on the CLI and on C programming - where the action is at for geeks of merit.

      Yeah, sure - because being a 'grown-up' and a 'geek of merit' is the exclusive province of programmers and CLI gurus, right? Asshat...

      Save your "but everyone is using Linux & Ubuntu these days, nobody cares about you BSD greybeards" comment. I'd point out that it's both Argumentum ad numerum and Argumentum ad populum, but then I'd have to explain logic and translate the Latin.

      Oh my! You've supplied TWO argumenta - THREE if you count the implied argumentum ad hominem of which your entire comment reeks! Elitist, much? I hope you don't suffer from faintness or nosebleeds as a result of the rarefied stratum in which you (imagine) you live!

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re: Yawn. Back to Fluxbox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suckers like you say that on everything you don't like/know.

  6. Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have had the opportunity to use Gnome on an x86 tablet, and it is already there. It's funny, typically I do not like Gnome. But put it on a tablet and it is awesome. Granted, I am speaking as a nerd not a general consumer. Still, if you get the chance you will see what I mean.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      And how many low cost x86 tablets are "already there" when it comes to driver support in an X11-based Linux distro? Most of the ones I've seen have Win8 and maybe Win10 driver support before the rug was pulled out from under them. MANY MANY of them used 32-bit EFI which is a nightmare when it comes to getting any mainstream Linux distros or BSD running.

      Hell, how many laptops with impressive sales figures have full Linux or BSD support these days where EVERY FEATURE of the machine is actually supported? I'd say the x86 front has gotten worse.

      If I were Linux/BSD/X11 devs I'd be focused on getting GLES support in X11-based apps to be mainstream and busting ass on open-source ARM MALI drivers. I'd wager more ARM boards can run Linux than modern cheap laptops.

    2. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      There is one on Amazon for less than $200. Nice old fashioned BIOS and all. Out of the box it dual boots Android and Win 10, but booting to a Linux installer is trivial. All features work.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    3. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you share a link please?

    4. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...

      Okay, so it is a hair over $200. Keep in mind that it is USB C in case you need an adapter. I'm also giving a shout out to the separately purchased mag lock keyboard, it is a thing of engineering elegance:

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MXFUJ9O/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&th=1

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    5. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. What distro did you install?

    6. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People complained about Windows 8 being too much tablet on the desktop. Yet Win8 was much less intrusive with its tablet-isms than Gnome3 is.

    7. Re:Dropping PhoneTablet Dev by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      This was awhile back (tablet suffered a catastrophic fall) it was either Ubuntu or Mint.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  7. Come down from the Clouds by Dorianny · · Score: 1
    Sorry but there is nothing in the linked Post about the "Cloud."

    In fact for a distribution aimed at people PC's, focusing on the "Cloud," or as we used to call them "other peoples servers" would be really strange indeed

    1. Re:Come down from the Clouds by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      How soon they forget. Ubuntu ONE Cloud, like Ubuntu ONE Music, dead and not missed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. Ubuntu's now going to be dead on the desktop by mTor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't stand hamburger UI, giant title bars and that annoying menu/title bar at the top so I never "upgraded" to GNOME. It seems to me that GNOME team took a bunch of macOS features and stitched together a DE. However, while macOS is quite logical and there's a reason why things are on that OS, much of how GNOME works makes little sense from usability point of view.

    This is why I stuck with Xfce, Unity and Cinnamon. I run all three of these DEs on my various computers and laptops.

    But now that Ubuntu is moving to GNOME, what's the point of using Ubuntu over Fedora? RedHat has all the GNOME devs and they have the best GNOME + Wayland implementation. And that implementation actually works without Xorg. Other distros that run GNOME still can't get Wayland working right. Can Canonical/Ubuntu team make a better version of GNOME than RedHat? Given the history, I'm willing to bet money against that.

    I'm also quite sick of apt-get and inflexible PPAs and managing them has been an absolute hell. Things just break, packages end up conflicting and untangling the mess can take you hours. I find Fedora's DNF and Copr a lot more sane (almost as sane as pacman and AUR on Arch but probably not as good).

    So in conclusion, I really don't see a point in using Ubuntu anymore. If you want APT, just use Debian instead. If you care about GNOME, use Fedora. I'll be replacing Ubuntu with Fedora on one of my laptops later this year... and not with next version of Ubuntu+GNOME.

    1. Re:Ubuntu's now going to be dead on the desktop by Junta · · Score: 2

      Except how macOS actually gets some sort of utility out of that top bar. Gnome pretty much wastes the space by going very far out of their way to keep anything remotely possibly useful off of it (no window title list, no tray icons, not *really* any menus) and so it sits there as this ugly black waste of space with a few things on it. Minimalism might have been ok, but instead of striving to be minimalist to make way for utilitarian use of screen space, it is minimalist *and* wastes the screen space.

      On Fedora, my complaint is they are too purist and also too aggressive about 'mid-release' updates. If I have nvidia graphics, I get to live in a world where any random yum update will take me to a kernel that has zero nVidia support. Any of my random desktop apps could get a major version bump with UI redesign. With ubuntu release discipline, I pretty much only have to worry about that when dist-upgrade time comes.

      I personally haven't seen a lot of practical difference between apt and yum and ppa and copr nowadays. I do recall back in the day being utterly perplexed that RH went the yum route, when apt-rpm existed, if they were so attached to rpm (for whatever reason). Nowadays both rpm and deb are about equally good (though at least in some ways developing rpms can be easier), as are apt and dnf/yum.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Ubuntu's now going to be dead on the desktop by Ramze · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you assume the point of running Ubuntu for everyone is to run Unity, and thus with its switch to Gnome, we all clearly would rather switch to Debian or Fedora.

      I run Ubuntu -- with Cinnamon on multiple machines. Linux Mint (Mate and Cinnamon) is a highly popular distro which is based on Ubuntu. This change won't affect me or Linux Mint users other than perhaps accelerate Wayland use with Mir out of the picture.

      Ubuntu has a large user base, vast repositories, and darn near every project has a PPA and a "how to install / configure in Ubuntu" page. Whole wikis around customization and configuration/troubleshooting for Ubuntu. I haven't had any issues with APT, and I prefer it over the wonky pacman and yum... though hopefully Ubuntu will also drop its snaps and switch to flatpak like the rest of the linux world.

      Debian is great -- and I'm glad Ubuntu pulls from it, but Debian doesn't have all the repositories I want. Linux Mint is based upon an older Ubuntu, and it, too has old repositories (I literally couldn't install the latest VLC on Mint b/c it would break packages, but Ubuntu had the latest that fixed a bug I had an issue with!) Fedora -- fantastic... but it has a different release cycle and no LTS releases... and it's a bit of a guinea pig for Red Hat (a step above rawhide at least) rather than a consumer-oriented distro.

      I know Canonical can be a bit shady from time to time, but the 17.04 Ubuntu is shaping up to be a nice system... and I never cared for Unity anyway. I'm glad they're pulling those resources and focusing more on future Wayland support and the more popular Gnome DE... Cinnamon began as a fork of Gnome, and if Gnome goes astray, someone may take the good work and fork it again if need be... and maybe the Cinnamon team can port some of the Wayland changes from Gnome over to it... assuming it's not all archaic spaghetti code by now.

    3. Re:Ubuntu's now going to be dead on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not the only one that dislikes the giant title bars and window frames of "modern" Gnome. Tools like gedit and nautilus once were nice and now they are made into horrible tablet UI's. I switched to KDE, but Xfce is nice too.

    4. Re:Ubuntu's now going to be dead on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could still run any desktop environment you want on Ubuntu (other than unity, I guess). Ubuntu has a larger repository than Fedora via Debian.

  9. They're mostly by waspleg · · Score: 1

    complaining about how radically different Gnome 2 and Gnome 3 are it was a Python-level community split and I say that as someone who basically doesn't care. So the people who hate Gnome 3 are mostly KDE people or Gnome 2 people.

    I personally hated Unity mostly because of it's corporate bullshit which Canonical I'm sure is still pursuing (ads on your desktop anyone? Sound familiar?) in some form.

    The first Linux desktop I saw which actually impressed me was a customized one in the 90's that a friend made from Gnome and Enlightenment.

    I'm not a programmer either, I started with Slackware in 1995, I have Linux machines but not as my primary desktop and I am not exactly a zealot.

    For the end user, the difference is mostly in the UI/UX and what applications will play nice with what (as far as integrated look and feel you can mostly run whatever); I usually end up installing the dependencies for several to get shit to work or to use some part of something I like over the other. I'm not really talking about package management which you listed (just about everything is a front end for a front end for a front end at this point. I like yum and apt more or less equally (and yes I said apt not apt-get, search is good)).

    I have Mint on my laptop and Cinnamon (based on Gnome 3) is decent but not without problems. So yea... some rambling .. maybe some of it is useful.

    Oh and yea API/where files go/*everything*, they have their own window managers there are lots of choices and differences between them; you can install them and then use the login manager (for the name) in Mint to try different window managers and find one you like but warning YMMV and some are broken by default.

    1. Re:They're mostly by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I hated unity because at the least early version was terrible with common sense mistakes.

      The biggest was that a maximized window had the close button on the top left corner of the screen.

      The launcher button was top left but 20 or so px down.

      A slight overshoot lead to closing the window you were working on.

      It is common sense to not put those things so close.

      It's also common sense to put the launcher in a corner

      Third, if using a unified interface, it's common sense for the launcher to be on the bottom edge.

      It was like they went out of their way to design a broken interface to show students why these things aren't just things you're told, but why it's important.

      Also, it lead to them killing off developement of windincators, which I was pretty excited for.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  10. Cinnamon is the Best Desktop by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Cinnamon is what Gnome 3 should have been.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Cinnamon is the Best Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using cinnamon mint 18.1 for a few months. It's nice enough but it has problems that I never had with Ubuntu using gnome. Cinnamon is NOT stable and the mint team hasn't fixed problems that have persisted over many releases. It's a bit disappointing to be honest. I couldn't recommend it to non-tech people because it simply is not stable. I think that's too bad given how people keep saying how it's a drop in for Windows... (maybe the crashes are emulation!)

  11. I can't be the only one... by ckatko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...that liked Unity. And I'm NO casual. But it made excellent use of space on a Netbook. I dislike how they basically use every possible meta key combination, but in exchange for that, I get super fast virtual-desktop commands, moving windows inside a desktop, and moving windows across desktops. My little 2 GB RAM Chromebook with ~10 inch screen converted to Ubuntu is the workhorse of my day. I use it for clients, for RDP, I use it at home for fun and programming hobby games.

    I honestly don't know what I'm going to switch to now. I hate that you can't customize everything in Unity, but what you could customize with a few tools, worked well for me.

    I combine Unity with Guake. Guake is a top-down multi-tab terminal like the Quake drop-down console. So I've got virtual desktops for each task, one for personal internet, one for business internet, one for taking notes, and one for running Audacity while recording conferences. Meanwhile, I use Guake and quake pops down with F5, and goes back up with F5. And, Guake doesn't change when you change virtual desktops. So I can have four tasks running, and tasks inbetween them can be in Guake. (Of course, Guake also has multi-tabs.)

    So between the two, I'm very fast and efficient with my keypresses. People will watch me work and be amazed. And I go, "This is Linux, and it's awesome."

    But Unity is a big chunk of that efficiency for me. People say it's slow and fat, but my 2 GB RAM laptop seems to be just fine with it. It almost never crashes. I've got some plugins for it that work well for monitoring stats. Meanwhile, I open a single Google Doc in Chrome on my system and it takes almost half of my entire machine's memory and CPU usage. And even sites that aren't as notoriously fat as Google Docs, still fill up my RAM fast. So my entire supposedly "fat slow" system is dwarfed by most websites.

    So, yeah, this kind of sucks. Just when these dumb twats at Canonical get people to change (while telling us the whole time "this is the BEST way to do Linux!") they change their minds and go back. So whatever high ground they had before, they just lost by going right back to GNOME3. Who the hell is running that company? A couple of monkey's humping a random number generator? I can't wait to find the next "modern feature" they shoved down our throats, only to change their minds on.

    1. Re:I can't be the only one... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't like Unity, but I respected it, and found it to be usable - something GNOME Shell just isn't, not without a lot of work and a massive change in workflow and expectations anyway. Unity was a serious attempt to build a better desktop, but Canonical married itself to concepts before testing them in the real world, and I honestly think if they'd done more user testing, the dock wouldn't have been left in (not in that form anyway), and the "search for everything" model would have been dumped.

      I wish they'd been successful, and in a contest between GNOME Shell and Unity, I wish they'd had have prevailed.

      Alas Shuttleworth's comments suggest that, while they'll contribute to GNOME, it's unlikely they'll ship any improvements without the GNOME team's blessing. So this is a wholesale surrender to a failed, deeply unpopular, desktop, by a better alternative. It's very sad.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux desktops all have things wrong with them, but Unity was fairly tolerable and if you learned to accept the limitations and work within them --- is quite functional.

      KDE to me is far better than Gnome. I've used Cinnamon too. I was hoping maybe they could eventually make Unity nicer.

      Don't know why none of Linux desktops can't be in the Windows XP category of usability, but they aren't. Windows 8 is terrible compared to other versions of Windows and Windows 10 isn't "yours" and is half spyware --- and both of those are far more refined than any of the Linux desktop environments.

      Free, doesn't spy on you, nice ---- pick any 2.

    3. Re:I can't be the only one... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      For me, canonical have decided to spend less on development and hope their revenue is now more than their outgoings. I like unity too. Maybe it will remain as an optional shell for gnome.

    4. Re:I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, Unity perhaps some glitches and some interface mistakes its a nice interface. But, Gnome NO!!!!. When they launch Gnome 3.0, I try to take part, give some suggestions, But they are very aggressive and don't hear anyone. For example they change Keyboard settings, from something that was good logical, to mimic Windows. Files? Oh ! God, they remove every feature. This is the reason that Linux Mint gain more and more users, because Clement Lefebvre, make something revolutionary Hear the Users.

    5. Re:I can't be the only one... by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      +1 guake

    6. Re:I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading your post, I have the exact same setup using KDE instead of Unity. There are customisable keyboard shortcuts for moving windows inside and across desktops, switching desktops, running applications and I'm using yakuake instead of Guake (with about 8 desktops). You should give it a try!

    7. Re:I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... Who the hell is running that company? A couple of monkey's humping a random number generator? ...

      Cops; they fuck everything up.

    8. Re: I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed you are not the only one. The only thing I ever really disliked about Unity was the damn stupid global menu and that was always easy to disable.

      With local menus it's by far my favourite DE. Fast, nice-looking, space-efficient and clean.

      I just te-tried Gnome-Shell and still dislike it as much as when it first came out.

      This is a sad day for the Linux world and I don't get all the Canonical and Ubuntu hate some people developed the last few years.
      So Canonical tried to make a bit of money by putting Amazon ads in search results - big boohoo - it was always trivial to disable - so not an actual problem and has been disabled by default for a while now.

      A world where all the phones are under Google or Apple control is not a good one. A free alternative is needed and Canonical was the only potential commercial alternative with any hope at all.
      I hope LuneOS (former webos) survives in some form.

      I really hope Unity 7 gets forked.

    9. Re:I can't be the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like unity also, and I loathe gnome 3 shell default. I find it is possible however to make gnome 3 pretty good with the use of plugins that alter the shell behavior and an alternate file manager.

  12. Re:MATE is the Best Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MATE is what Gnome 3 should have been.

    FTFY.

  13. Finally, the year of the Linux Desktop by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I all but gave up on Linux being a viable operating system when Ubuntu switched from Gnome to Unity. So happy that I can start running it again and that I'll finally see the year of the Linux desktop.

    1. Re:Finally, the year of the Linux Desktop by fnj · · Score: 1

      What weird planet do you live on, that you couldn't always just install any desktop environment you want by installing packages?

    2. Re:Finally, the year of the Linux Desktop by RDW · · Score: 1

      A planet where we have short memories? Today, you can easily switch between Unity, the Gnome 3 shell, the Gnome 3 Classic interface and MATE on Ubuntu, or move to Mint and use Cinnamon or MATE. Back in 2011-12 everything was a mess - Ubuntu was dropping Gnome 2 and switching to Unity with Gnome 3 as the main alternative. Anyone who wanted something like Gnome 2 either had to put up with Gnome 3's rudimentary fallback mode, or learn the necessary incantations to install an early version of MATE from the developers' own site, or get used to Xfce. Ubuntu seemed to have forgotten the formula that brought its early success - a straightforward OS that was both stable and up to date, with an interface than anyone used to Windows or the Mac could easily jump into.

    3. Re: Finally, the year of the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On what weird planet does he live on where Unity is not a viable DE.

      It looks nice, is space-efficient and allows me to launch programs. Viable.

    4. Re: Finally, the year of the Linux Desktop by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      My humble apologies. Apparently I needed to include the tag.  A:  Linux is somewhat irrelevant as a desktop anymore (I have a few dozen blades running a mix of Red Hat and SUSE in one of my server rooms)    B: The year of any desktop was supplanted by Android and Ios.   I'm writing this on my phone now.

  14. Phones & Tablet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man let phones & tablets be phones & tablets. They aren't desktops; they aren't laptops. We don't want them to try to act to be. This is not a "failure", its a wakeup call, one I bet Microsoft would have LOVED to get prior to the release of 8. Ubuntu is very lucky to have a real life example of exactly what we (consumers) DON'T want, and where paths lead... I'm happy and excited for Ubuntu; gotta be in it for the long game =)

  15. Regarding the state of Unity by Visarga · · Score: 1

    I was recently trying to settle down with Unity on Ubuntu 16.04, and it is generally ok. But then I run into a problem when I wanted to do the simple task of reducing the scrolling sensitivity. I searched, and asked on forums, and it seems impossible to do. Why would such basic controls, that once existed, be removed from Mouse & Touchpad system settings?

    1. Re:Regarding the state of Unity by Olotila · · Score: 1

      I use Ubuntu Gnome happily on my main computer and Linux Mint on two laptops. It was really surprising to me too one could not change mouse scroll speed in Gnome. I searched for a solution and finally bumped to imwheel, found this video and followed it's instructions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Regarding the state of Unity by Cbhihe · · Score: 1

      You can do that running Unity as DE as well as with any other DE. But you need to do it from cli. See for instance: https://askubuntu.com/question...

  16. APT and Ubuntu by kbahey · · Score: 1

    I never used GNOME. In a way, I can't forgive them for fragmenting the desktop Linux back in the 1990s (yes, it was because of the license, but that was fixed soon after in KDE, and became a non-issue, yet, GNOME marched on). If we had one good desktop, it would have been more conducive to adoption. And no, this is not an area where 'users can pick from alternatives'. So called choice in the desktop environment was bad fragmentation that Linux desktop never recovered from. That was compounded by GNOME 3, and Unity came in to try to fill the void. Others resisted the over bloated desktops, and therefore we see the minimalists like XFCE, LXDE, ..etc.

    I have been using KDE Ubuntu (kubuntu) for over 15 years as my only desktop. With the 14.04 to 16.04 upgrade, KDE started down the path of 'protecting the user from themselves' by dumbing down things. Some things were missing (a weather widget), and other thing could not be customized (e.g. notifications stay in a place where you can check them later).

    So, I did something I was contemplating for a long time, for minimalism and other reasons: switch to XFCE (Xubuntu 16.04). I am happy with it.

    I disagree that Ubuntu has bad package management. All these years, I rarely had any repository conflict. One or two times in the over 15 years I have been using Ubuntu. If you add a lot of PPA's then yes, you may get conflicts. I don't have many PPAs. I only use the odd one for a specific software that is not up to date (e.g. GIMP 2.9.x, which has 16-bit image support), and that is it.