A reputation-based security measure that is opt-in can't be very effective. The whole premise behind this kind of security is that many people use it.
And your premise is that the security advantages of an opt-in system that reports all of the users installed software trumps the privacy disadvantages for uninformed users who either don't realize the feature even exists, are confused about how to disable it, or are too lackadaisical to care. Based on the points raised in the summary about possible subpoenas and without assurance that this database will be completely anonymized or at least pseudonymized with no identifying information correlatable to actual users it should be opt-in.
But even if you use those opt outs on your new computer you still pay the Microsoft tax.
This may be true but you would have paid that tax anyway on that computer. There's still the loss to them of potential app store revenue, mindshare, and market control.
Isn't that equivalent to the answer of 'If you don't want Windows SmartScreen to tell Microsoft about your installed apps, go into Privacy and turn it off.'?
You're reading too much into my comment. I was just describing the steps for turning the features off. I'll add though that implying that behavior some people are uncomfortable with is defensible by pointing out other seemingly similar behavior has got to be some kind of logical fallacy.
If you have any reason to want to look at a different window, then using a modal dialog was the wrong choice.
I'm coming up empty on specific examples but it usually involves something like wanting to scroll a list when the modal dialog is up to refer to something or move the root window to the edge of the screen. Just random little stuff that you can do in Gnome but not in Windows.
Nautilus: a click on a filename does not put it into rename mode. Something Windows and OS X have, and Nautilus had. WONTFIX: it helps prevent user errors.
And if you think that's great wait'll you see what they're cooking up for Nautilus next. Say bye bye to F3 split-screen mode. Compact mode? Gone. And more that I don't even have the stomach to list. It's sad.
I put Ubuntu with Unity on it and set it up so he could go to facebook and play solitaire and sudoku. He hasn't had any problems with it yet and likes it more than the Windows XP machine because it boots up way faster and has what he wants in an easy to find place.
That's awesome. Unity is the first Linux DE that I've used where I didn't feel the need to configure the shit out of it to get it where I wanted and to get it looking nice. A couple of years ago I set my mom up with a heavily customed out version of Ubuntu 10.04 with a barely recognizable Gnome 2 but today I'd just put Unity on it, make a couple of small changes and let it rip.
Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity.
Bear in mind that Unity had a bug that up until it was fixed recently would consume significant amounts of CPU at idle making the desktop quite sluggish. Maybe try it again when you get a chance.
Modal dialogs that don't stay on top, e.g. (I suppose you could call that a Gnome2 problem..but I wouldn't.))
I always thought of that as a "feature". I sorely miss it when I'm on another system and fruitlessly clicking on the root window only to have the modal dialog flash at me.
I should have been specific. I meant low-res for a computer. I could get similar resolution affordably 15 years ago. The reason affordable computer displays hover around 1080P is that is what all the plants are pumping out for TVs. When TVs get a good resolution bump, affordable computer monitors will too.
I just happen to think that a new "standard" that requires such a high-resolution display that nobody even knows how to build one yet is useless.
I admit to not being privy to the production intricacies of display panels but other than yield problems with so many more pixels to not be dead, what would be the show-stopper?
/usability-wise, according to my view, it's Windows 7, OS X, KDE on top, GNOME 2 and others at the middle and GNOME 3, UNITY and Windows 8 at the bottom.
I've been using Unity in 12.04 and I switch between Gnome 2 in Debian and Explorer.exe in Windows 7 multiple times a day and I have to say that the more I use Unity the more I like it. I'd even go so far as to proclaim it the best desktop UI I've ever used. Oddly enough the things I like best are what most other people seem to hate. I'll mention a few and add the disclaimer that Ubuntu works perfectly on my hardware so I'm just going to focus on features.
Dual monitor support is perfect for me in Unity. I plug in the second monitor and immediately it just works. The second monitor gets its own dock and indicator bar at the top just like I would want. When I open an application from the respective docks it opens on the correct monitor. If you move the mouse below a certain speed threshold, it sticks just a little on the dock on the second screen making it easy to aim for despite essentially floating in space.
The dock is practically custom made for wide screen laptops that most people use these days. I naturally want it on the side so it doesn't take up precious vertical pixels. It can be set to stay visible or auto-hide. It's trivially easy to add Windows style "jumplists" to icons for added functionality, i.e., when I click the Show Desktop button I get the desktop but when I right click it I can select Invert Colors which does just what it says. It took a couple of minutes to add that. One thing about the dock some people might not like is if a window cannot be minimized by clicking it's icon only focused. I didn't like it at first but after a while I got to where I appreciated the consistency of clicking a button only doing one thing instead of it acting as some kind of ad-hoc toggle. For me it that's a part of the UI just getting out of my way. I don't have to map my brain away from what I'm concentrating on to worry about whether I want to click on another icon to focus or should I click on the current application's icon to reveal the application underneath. It's a small thing but it actually helps.
The top panel plugin system is a vast improvement over Gnome 2 IMHO. It is consistent, easy to develop for, and just looks nice. Being able to write a quick mail checker in Python and just running it automatically putting it in the panel is golden and much improved over the bonobo framework of old.
Obviously I like Unity and I think it's a step forward for Linux. It does require a bit of an adaptation and it's non-traditional in ways that will ruffle feathers but if you remember Gnome 2 ruffled feathers of the original Gnome diehards but now people sing its praises.
Seems like they could at least do like the satellite radio people do and vary the signal based on what's being broadcast. The classical stations on XM are pristine while the rock stations...eh...not so much.
I prefer gnome3 to unity for the shrinky window thing it does showing whats open (like osx).
Since Unity uses Compiz for the compositing manager you actually have access to all of Compiz's effects like Scale which is a very powerful version of Expo that you're talking about. Scale actually comes in two parts with the standard and the extra strength version which gives cool options like "right click to close" etc.
Don't take this the wrong way but I have to respond to your points here.
- The menu hierarchy was impossible to understand and modify.
$/usr/bin/alacarte gives you the ability to add or remove anything you want from the Gnome main menu. You can also add custom.desktop files to ~/.local/applications and they'll just show up automatically. I'm not saying that was the most intuitive thing ever but it isn't impossible.
- Panels were clumsy, and tended to take up a lot of space (especially double-height panels and top/bottom panels)
You can easily consolidate everything to one panel and delete the other one. Just right click the bottom panel and hit "delete this panel" and then add whatever plugin like the taskbar to the top panel and your golden. As far as width, just lower the number of pixel height in the settings.
- Desktop is a directory - ends up with a lot of visible clutter after years of use - needs constant management
There's the obvious solution of just not saving anything on the desktop which works well since most Linux applications default to ~ in the Save dialog. The only problem I can see is installing stuff with Wine which does tend to add an icon to the desktop if you select that in the installer but those are probably few and far between and can be deleted as needed. Another option is in the nautilus settings in gconf-editor, you can deselect showing anything on the desktop and it will remain empty no matter what.
- Plugins are only constrained to applets and nautilus-extensions. Poor extensibility
You'd have to say specifically what you want the plugin to do but I can't say that Gnome 2 fights you in any particular way. The only real issues with Gnome 2 that is see in this regard is the default framework for applets is a bit limited and finding good documentation and an entry point for writing your own stuff is more difficult than it should be. Ubuntu's Unity makes it very easy to build your own plugins and it doesn't depend on anything like bonobo so I do prefer their approach. I'll give you this one on an assumed lower complexity alone.
- Window manager is old and busted - composite desktop an afterthought - why do I have to test out 3 different window managers?
I'm not saying Metacity is the greatest window manager ever but it delivers most everything I want and is pretty lightweight. With gconf-editor it's easy to set focus follows mouse which is a must for multi-monitor desktops IMHO, and there are keyboard shortcuts for most stuff like "always on top", move to workspace blah blah, etc. It even has a simple built in compositor that gives you some minimal eye candy like drop shadows and allows applications like cairo-dock to work correctly. As far as real compositing goes, I'm still a fan of compiz as I have yet to find anything that does more and I've haven't ever had stability problems with it. Is there anything clutter does that compiz doesn't?
I'm glad you like Gnome 3 and I hope someday I'll like it too but for now it's just not for me.
The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.
As much as I dislike Gnome 3, if there was one shred of evidence that non-Linux users would more readily embrace the OS due to it, I would be much more enthusiastic. All I've seen so far is a large segment of the community (including myself) alienated and little to no new users to show for it. If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.
The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.
It might look something like Gnome 2 but it ain't Gnome 2. I admit I haven't tried it in a while but last I checked, it lacked customisability, plugins, etc. that made Gnome 2 what it was.
Ok, Apple has launched their retina displays which do have a really good resolution but where's the rest of the industry?
Apple can get an actual economy of scale with a line of consumer laptops costing over 2 grand. Nobody else has been able to pull that off. Also, since Apple has direct control over their OS, they can customize it as needed for non-mainstream hardware like high dpi displays. Their competitors are stuck with whatever MS sells them.
People buying the TVs subsidizing the economy of scale lowering the price of equally resolant computer monitors. And incidentally releasing us from the purgatory of 1920x1080 low dpi crap that is spun as high-end by CE marketing departments everywhere.
Yeah, they can come up with whatever standard they want as long as handbrake and whatever I happen to be using as a settop box at the time supports the resolution without skipping frames. On a related note I wonder what the dollar amount of broadcast standard related patent royalties is rolled into the typical price of an HDTV vs. an equally resolution equipped computer monitor.
It's actually 5.9. This is a non-story unless people want to talk about LTE with data caps being counted as "broadband" in the same sense as traditional DSL and cable. Now that's a spin worth wringing one's hands over.
Slashdot Mirror
Godspeed.
I said buy a lottery ticket. Not play Russian roulette with all 6 bullets in the gun hoping for a misfire. ;)
A reputation-based security measure that is opt-in can't be very effective. The whole premise behind this kind of security is that many people use it.
And your premise is that the security advantages of an opt-in system that reports all of the users installed software trumps the privacy disadvantages for uninformed users who either don't realize the feature even exists, are confused about how to disable it, or are too lackadaisical to care. Based on the points raised in the summary about possible subpoenas and without assurance that this database will be completely anonymized or at least pseudonymized with no identifying information correlatable to actual users it should be opt-in.
But even if you use those opt outs on your new computer you still pay the Microsoft tax.
This may be true but you would have paid that tax anyway on that computer. There's still the loss to them of potential app store revenue, mindshare, and market control.
Isn't that equivalent to the answer of 'If you don't want Windows SmartScreen to tell Microsoft about your installed apps, go into Privacy and turn it off.'?
You're reading too much into my comment. I was just describing the steps for turning the features off. I'll add though that implying that behavior some people are uncomfortable with is defensible by pointing out other seemingly similar behavior has got to be some kind of logical fallacy.
Popcon has to be deliberately opted into by checking a box. This requires opt-out. Completely different ball of wax.
The day has finally arrived where I agree with every sentence in a SuperKendall post. Time to go buy that lottery ticket!
If you want to use Chrome without sending that stuff to Google it's really easy. Go into the settings and click on Privacy. Uncheck everything. Done.
If you have any reason to want to look at a different window, then using a modal dialog was the wrong choice.
I'm coming up empty on specific examples but it usually involves something like wanting to scroll a list when the modal dialog is up to refer to something or move the root window to the edge of the screen. Just random little stuff that you can do in Gnome but not in Windows.
Nautilus: a click on a filename does not put it into rename mode. Something Windows and OS X have, and Nautilus had. WONTFIX: it helps prevent user errors.
And if you think that's great wait'll you see what they're cooking up for Nautilus next. Say bye bye to F3 split-screen mode. Compact mode? Gone. And more that I don't even have the stomach to list. It's sad.
I put Ubuntu with Unity on it and set it up so he could go to facebook and play solitaire and sudoku. He hasn't had any problems with it yet and likes it more than the Windows XP machine because it boots up way faster and has what he wants in an easy to find place.
That's awesome. Unity is the first Linux DE that I've used where I didn't feel the need to configure the shit out of it to get it where I wanted and to get it looking nice. A couple of years ago I set my mom up with a heavily customed out version of Ubuntu 10.04 with a barely recognizable Gnome 2 but today I'd just put Unity on it, make a couple of small changes and let it rip.
Actually, if you disable the desktop search function in the settings, KDE uses less resources than Gnome 3 (shell or cinnamon) or Unity.
Bear in mind that Unity had a bug that up until it was fixed recently would consume significant amounts of CPU at idle making the desktop quite sluggish. Maybe try it again when you get a chance.
Modal dialogs that don't stay on top, e.g. (I suppose you could call that a Gnome2 problem..but I wouldn't.))
I always thought of that as a "feature". I sorely miss it when I'm on another system and fruitlessly clicking on the root window only to have the modal dialog flash at me.
Since when is 1080 low-res for television.
I should have been specific. I meant low-res for a computer. I could get similar resolution affordably 15 years ago. The reason affordable computer displays hover around 1080P is that is what all the plants are pumping out for TVs. When TVs get a good resolution bump, affordable computer monitors will too.
I just happen to think that a new "standard" that requires such a high-resolution display that nobody even knows how to build one yet is useless.
I admit to not being privy to the production intricacies of display panels but other than yield problems with so many more pixels to not be dead, what would be the show-stopper?
/usability-wise, according to my view, it's Windows 7, OS X, KDE on top, GNOME 2 and others at the middle and GNOME 3, UNITY and Windows 8 at the bottom.
I've been using Unity in 12.04 and I switch between Gnome 2 in Debian and Explorer.exe in Windows 7 multiple times a day and I have to say that the more I use Unity the more I like it. I'd even go so far as to proclaim it the best desktop UI I've ever used. Oddly enough the things I like best are what most other people seem to hate. I'll mention a few and add the disclaimer that Ubuntu works perfectly on my hardware so I'm just going to focus on features.
Dual monitor support is perfect for me in Unity. I plug in the second monitor and immediately it just works. The second monitor gets its own dock and indicator bar at the top just like I would want. When I open an application from the respective docks it opens on the correct monitor. If you move the mouse below a certain speed threshold, it sticks just a little on the dock on the second screen making it easy to aim for despite essentially floating in space.
The dock is practically custom made for wide screen laptops that most people use these days. I naturally want it on the side so it doesn't take up precious vertical pixels. It can be set to stay visible or auto-hide. It's trivially easy to add Windows style "jumplists" to icons for added functionality, i.e., when I click the Show Desktop button I get the desktop but when I right click it I can select Invert Colors which does just what it says. It took a couple of minutes to add that. One thing about the dock some people might not like is if a window cannot be minimized by clicking it's icon only focused. I didn't like it at first but after a while I got to where I appreciated the consistency of clicking a button only doing one thing instead of it acting as some kind of ad-hoc toggle. For me it that's a part of the UI just getting out of my way. I don't have to map my brain away from what I'm concentrating on to worry about whether I want to click on another icon to focus or should I click on the current application's icon to reveal the application underneath. It's a small thing but it actually helps.
The top panel plugin system is a vast improvement over Gnome 2 IMHO. It is consistent, easy to develop for, and just looks nice. Being able to write a quick mail checker in Python and just running it automatically putting it in the panel is golden and much improved over the bonobo framework of old.
Obviously I like Unity and I think it's a step forward for Linux. It does require a bit of an adaptation and it's non-traditional in ways that will ruffle feathers but if you remember Gnome 2 ruffled feathers of the original Gnome diehards but now people sing its praises.
Seems like they could at least do like the satellite radio people do and vary the signal based on what's being broadcast. The classical stations on XM are pristine while the rock stations...eh...not so much.
I prefer gnome3 to unity for the shrinky window thing it does showing whats open (like osx).
Since Unity uses Compiz for the compositing manager you actually have access to all of Compiz's effects like Scale which is a very powerful version of Expo that you're talking about. Scale actually comes in two parts with the standard and the extra strength version which gives cool options like "right click to close" etc.
- The menu hierarchy was impossible to understand and modify.
$ /usr/bin/alacarte gives you the ability to add or remove anything you want from the Gnome main menu. You can also add custom .desktop files to ~/.local/applications and they'll just show up automatically. I'm not saying that was the most intuitive thing ever but it isn't impossible.
- Panels were clumsy, and tended to take up a lot of space (especially double-height panels and top/bottom panels)
You can easily consolidate everything to one panel and delete the other one. Just right click the bottom panel and hit "delete this panel" and then add whatever plugin like the taskbar to the top panel and your golden. As far as width, just lower the number of pixel height in the settings.
- Desktop is a directory - ends up with a lot of visible clutter after years of use - needs constant management
There's the obvious solution of just not saving anything on the desktop which works well since most Linux applications default to ~ in the Save dialog. The only problem I can see is installing stuff with Wine which does tend to add an icon to the desktop if you select that in the installer but those are probably few and far between and can be deleted as needed. Another option is in the nautilus settings in gconf-editor, you can deselect showing anything on the desktop and it will remain empty no matter what.
- Plugins are only constrained to applets and nautilus-extensions. Poor extensibility
You'd have to say specifically what you want the plugin to do but I can't say that Gnome 2 fights you in any particular way. The only real issues with Gnome 2 that is see in this regard is the default framework for applets is a bit limited and finding good documentation and an entry point for writing your own stuff is more difficult than it should be. Ubuntu's Unity makes it very easy to build your own plugins and it doesn't depend on anything like bonobo so I do prefer their approach. I'll give you this one on an assumed lower complexity alone.
- Window manager is old and busted - composite desktop an afterthought - why do I have to test out 3 different window managers?
I'm not saying Metacity is the greatest window manager ever but it delivers most everything I want and is pretty lightweight. With gconf-editor it's easy to set focus follows mouse which is a must for multi-monitor desktops IMHO, and there are keyboard shortcuts for most stuff like "always on top", move to workspace blah blah, etc. It even has a simple built in compositor that gives you some minimal eye candy like drop shadows and allows applications like cairo-dock to work correctly. As far as real compositing goes, I'm still a fan of compiz as I have yet to find anything that does more and I've haven't ever had stability problems with it. Is there anything clutter does that compiz doesn't?
I'm glad you like Gnome 3 and I hope someday I'll like it too but for now it's just not for me.
The only growth for linux on the desktop are those people not using linux. The Gnome developers have chosen to redesign the UI to go after those users.
As much as I dislike Gnome 3, if there was one shred of evidence that non-Linux users would more readily embrace the OS due to it, I would be much more enthusiastic. All I've seen so far is a large segment of the community (including myself) alienated and little to no new users to show for it. If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it.
The classic shell is very similar to the old gnome 2.
It might look something like Gnome 2 but it ain't Gnome 2. I admit I haven't tried it in a while but last I checked, it lacked customisability, plugins, etc. that made Gnome 2 what it was.
Ok, Apple has launched their retina displays which do have a really good resolution but where's the rest of the industry?
Apple can get an actual economy of scale with a line of consumer laptops costing over 2 grand. Nobody else has been able to pull that off. Also, since Apple has direct control over their OS, they can customize it as needed for non-mainstream hardware like high dpi displays. Their competitors are stuck with whatever MS sells them.
About the only thing UltraHD is going to introduce is a new optical disk format
And a new format war! Oh, and new and "improved" DRM. I can't wait to see who cracks it first. I'll get the popcorn ready.
I dont see the point, yet
People buying the TVs subsidizing the economy of scale lowering the price of equally resolant computer monitors. And incidentally releasing us from the purgatory of 1920x1080 low dpi crap that is spun as high-end by CE marketing departments everywhere.
Yeah, they can come up with whatever standard they want as long as handbrake and whatever I happen to be using as a settop box at the time supports the resolution without skipping frames. On a related note I wonder what the dollar amount of broadcast standard related patent royalties is rolled into the typical price of an HDTV vs. an equally resolution equipped computer monitor.
And thusly a new sub-genre of fetish porn was born...
It's actually 5.9. This is a non-story unless people want to talk about LTE with data caps being counted as "broadband" in the same sense as traditional DSL and cable. Now that's a spin worth wringing one's hands over.