Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
| From: | Rick Spencer <rick.spencer-Z7WLFzj8eWMS+FvcfC7Uqw-AT-public.gmane.org> | |
| To: | technical-board-nLRlyDuq1AZFpShjVBNYrg-AT-public.gmane.org | |
| Subject: | Follow up on Default Desktop Experinece for 11.04 | |
| Date: | Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:24:59 -0700 | |
| Message-ID: | <1302625499.1958.9.camel@localhost> |
Hello, I followed up on the @ubuntu-desktop list to let people know that 11.04 was still slated to default to Unity, and to give people a chance to escalate concerns. I cc'ed the @ubuntu-devel list as well for completeness. I do not believe any escalations have occurred or that the Desktop team has changed it's plan to default to Unity. Positions held about the appropriate default were split in supporting Unity or Classic as the default. Objections to defaulting to Unity fell into 2 categories, functional regressions and instabilities. Points regarding functional regressions cited lack of panel applets, lack of systray support, and poor Focus Follows Mouse experience. Instabilities were typically frequent crashes in Unity/Compiz. I followed up directly with the Desktop and Dx teams with regard to these issues. Panel applets and systray icons have been deprecated from Ubuntu in previous releases. However, they still work in Classic mode, so users who have not migrated from these technologies will be supported in that mode. Furthermore, for 11.04, systray support can be added to Unity via a whitelist. In terms of the instability of the system, the Desktop and Dx teams report that most remaining instabilities in Beta 2 are crashers related to making changes in ccsm. These crashers, and the other known widespread crashers are either fixed in Beta 2, or are scheduled to be fixed in the current Dx milestone that ends this week. See the Critical and High bugs here: https://launchpad.net/unity/+milestone/3.8.8 The Desktop Team still feels strongly that Unity will provide the better experience for most users, is stable enough to ship, and will be more stable by the time final media is spun. I hope that I have accurately summarized the positions on all sides. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide more context. Cheers, Rick -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:40 UTC (Thu)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (118 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:58 UTC (Thu)
by bluss (guest, #47454)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:58 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (91 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:27 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (52 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:31 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (33 responses)
I also think it's rather odd that anyone would characterize FFM as "working" today since there are a number of applications which utterly fail when it is enabled.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:37 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:52 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (3 responses)
Eclipse also has some pretty serious input field focusing issues that, last I checked, had not been resolved.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:34 UTC (Thu)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link]
Now GTK themes on the other hand can make it unusable.
The other proprietary crap you mention I have no experience with. I wouldn't call FFM broken, I would call those apps broken.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 23:25 UTC (Thu)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think I could probably get used to click-to-focus - after all it is what we use and expect for panes in a window (i.e. to type in the URL bar I have to click there, not just move my mouse there). However what I couldn't get used to is "click raises window" which often seems to accompany "click to focus".
Posted Apr 17, 2011 0:33 UTC (Sun)
by speedster1 (guest, #8143)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:11 UTC (Thu)
by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
[Link]
Alex
Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:56 UTC (Thu)
by newren (subscriber, #5160)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:05 UTC (Thu)
by dmadsen (guest, #14859)
[Link] (25 responses)
Click-to-focus is the aberration as far as I'm concerned. If I can't get FFM working, then the desktop is useless to me.
BTW, even Windows has FFM via TweakUI.
Perhaps the best fix for this bug is "find another distro"?
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:17 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (24 responses)
But it really requires a kind of denial on the level of heliocentrism to look at the data[1] and claim that your way is the most popular way and that the 99%+ of everyone is the "aberration."
[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201003-201103
Posted Apr 15, 2011 1:41 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (20 responses)
Since Linux has something like 1% of the desktop market share, why don't you just give up and use Windows?
Posted Apr 17, 2011 13:59 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (19 responses)
If you want to give up your Linux desktop then it's your choice. But if you want to keep it (as I do) then you must accept that you are a minority and you must fight for survival. If new things comes around and it only works with Windows (like DHCP, UPnP or whatever) then it's your responsibility to change Linux Desktop and make it usable with a new technology. Nobody will do anything just for you - except may be some small and simple tweaks. Yes somehow FFM-lovers feel they are entitled to support: when something comes around and breaks FFM they don't roll up sleeves and don't supply patches but instead complain and bitch around. It'll not help, sorry.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 14:08 UTC (Sun)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (18 responses)
they don't roll up sleeves and don't supply patches but instead complain and bitch around
Umm... no. When GNOME went off the rails for me several years ago, I just switched. There are plenty of competitive desktop environments and window managers that don't feel the need to completely redo the user interface just for the hell of it.
If GNOME developers take the attitude "we broke it; you fix it" then they'll simply shed users.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 14:50 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (15 responses)
Ah, cool. They are you discussing it now? Why the GNOME and Ubuntu developers bothers you at all? I sue don't lose sleep over changes in MacOS X UI because I don't use MacOS X, if you don't use GNOME and Ubuntu then why are you discussing them? Why are so sure? If they'll acquire even one new user for each lost one (not a big problem considering number of non-Linux users out there) then it'll be net win. Sure when/if Linux will have over 90% market penetration this approach will be stupid, but for now it's pretty good idea if implemented correctly. I'm not sure Unity is or GNOME Shell implement it correctly but they come from right initial POV: most user don't change defaults. Ever. So if you want to win the most market share you must cater to the needs of these users. But then constant barrage of changes is probably not a good idea either: you need a balance. Apple does it the best: when you slowly and gradually change the UI most people will accept it (and you can replace stupid choices with saner ones), but if you constantly redo everything... people just abandon you platform - and this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing with Unity. We'll see how it'll turn out, but today Ubuntu does pretty good even if not spectacular.
Posted Apr 18, 2011 17:36 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (14 responses)
Ah, cool. They [sic] are you discussing it now?
Because I'm interested in the topic. Am I not allowed to discuss software unless I don't use it?
If they'll acquire even one new user for each lost one (not a big problem considering number of non-Linux users out there) then it'll be net win.
Sorry. That will be a disaster. If GNOME (or KDE or any other Linux desktop) thinks it can go head-to-head with Microsoft [let's face it: MSFT users are the only source of non-UNIX users for GNOME to attract], then it is doomed. MSFT will steamroll all competitors in the desktop market and it's time we faced that fact.
The fact is that GNOME runs the huge risk of alienating many of its existing users for the uncertain promise of attracting new users. Well guess what? Windows users won't care if GNOME's interface is twice as intuitive as Windows, twice as fast, twice as reliable and twice as fun. They'll only care that their pet applications do not run on Linux and abandon ship as soon as $SOME_CUTE_ADWARE_APP does not run.
Linux has a small but dedicated population of desktop users. It's not about to gain very many desktop users away from Windows, so it might as well strive to keep its existing users happy.
Posted Apr 18, 2011 17:37 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
Am I not allowed to discuss software unless I don't use it?
s/don't //, obviously. :(
Posted Apr 18, 2011 20:57 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (12 responses)
Talk about clueless. Business does not operate this way. Business is supposed to bring profit. Existing desktop users don't bring a profit. That's the problem. Sorry, but no. MacOS was able to carve sizable niche - it's not clear why Linux can not do the same. The prudent choice if we accept the fact that Microsoft can not be beaten is abandonment of desktop - pull funding, leave it to the community, stop paying developers who develop things for desktop. Sorry, but this effect somehow does not work for MacOS users. Yes, I know: the only explanation is RDF. Great explanation. Not.
Posted Apr 18, 2011 22:40 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (11 responses)
Business does not operate this way. Business is supposed to bring profit. Existing desktop users don't bring a profit. That's the problem.
I was unaware that GNOME was in business to make profit.
Sorry, but no. MacOS was able to carve sizable niche - it's not clear why Linux can not do the same.
Umm... it's pretty clear to me. Apple is a marketing machine par excellence with a charismatic Dear Leader, unwavering focus, a massive cash flow and unbelievably zealous fanbois who are ready to snap up the latest in Steve Jobs Coolness.
Linux just doesn't have that kind of user base.
The prudent choice if we accept the fact that Microsoft can not be beaten is abandonment of desktop - pull funding, leave it to the community, stop paying developers who develop things for desktop.
Not at all. Many businesses thrive in niche markets. I run a business that's totally in a niche market. We just have to accept that the Linux desktop is a niche market and operate accordingly.
Sorry, but this effect somehow does not work for MacOS users.
MacOS has enough commercial software, games and silly commercial apps to keep unsophisticated users happy. Linux does not.
Believe me, I'd love to see Linux grab huge desktop market share. I've used it since 1994 (and not used any other OS on my desktop since then) so I'd be ecstatic if it took over the desktop. But it won't. I'm just being realistic.
I don't care that Linux won't take over the desktop, either. Its niche market is big enough for a healthy userbase and a good ecosystem, and that's just fine with me. If you want to go head to head with Microsoft on the desktop, good luck, but history is littered with the corpses of those who tried.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 4:22 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (10 responses)
Sorry, but all these factors were in place for years (Jobs returned to Apple in 1998 and MacOS X was released in 2001). Market share was stagnant for years till about 2005. Not yet. But it's not clear to me why do you think it's impossible for Ubuntu to get it. It's still young: first release was six years ago. Apple got "Steve Jobs Coolness" back in 1996. Yet for years Apple continued as niche player. Fanbois were there but there were not enough of them to make a comeback. Yet it happened. It took years and there are still many times more software for Windows. No, you are not. You position is different: I'd love to see Linux grab huge market share... but not at my expense. Because the required ingredient of the "consumer desktop" is plenty of ISVs and plenty of ISVs need uniform platform. And that means that all these fancy things (like FFM or, even worse, multiple WMs) should go. They may exist... but outside of the "supported" configuration. Take a look on Android: it's biggest problem right now is fragmentation. Google fights it valiantly because it's already a huge problem... even if it's nothing like Linux desktop fragmentation... even when only single distribution is used. I don't see the need to introduce third major flavor of Linux (in addition to KDE4 and GNOME3) - this looks like pro-fragmentation move, but perhaps Canonical can convince everyone to use it's version, who knows.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 7:38 UTC (Tue)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
The reason why Apple didn't take off years ago was that they didn't have anything to sell to the general public. Apple computers were generally perceived to be comparatively expensive and owning one basically marked you as a graphic designer or PR weenie. That game changed when Apple introduced the iPod and, later, the iPhone; these were still expensive within their respective fields, but they were lifestyle items rather than (dorky) PCs, and helped convince people to take a second look at Apple's PC offerings, too. The main difference between Canonical and Apple is that, unlike Canonical, Apple is a hardware company. Apple is in business to sell computers (and other gadgets), and MacOS exists because these computers need an operating system that is not Windows (otherwise, why buy a Mac?). People tend to purchase Apple's offerings – at a premium – not because of their overwhelming technical excellence but because of the slick overall impression they give. Since the hardware and OS are produced by the same manufacturer, they work well together, and Apple's customers are willing to pay extra for the comparative lack of hassle and the »coolness« they derive from walking around with a phone that has a prominent Apple logo on the back. Also unlike Canonical, Apple has been around for a while, and even people who don't actually own any Apple products generally know that the company exists and what it does.
Canonical, on the other hand, has problems getting people to pay for their product at all. In any case, it doesn't come with a computer attached, and while installing it on the computer that you already have is no longer »rocket science«, it is still a big step for most Windows users, and there can be snags (or the fear of running into snags) that spoil people's fun and act as a strong disincentive against switching over. If Canonical really wanted to make an (Apple-shaped) dent into the Windows market, they would have to sell computers with Ubuntu pre-installed and working – and of course not just computers, but computers where already the case looked different from the run-of-the-mill PC, just to make it obvious that something else was happening. Even then it would be an uphill struggle – today, if people see you using a Mac, they think you're trendy; if they see you using an Ubuntu box, they think you're a geek.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 11:29 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (8 responses)
But it's not clear to me why do you think it's impossible for Ubuntu to get it
Apple is a massive consumer electronics company. It sells huge quantities of cool hardware and music. Mac OS X is more-or-less incidental to the hardware sales; Apple has an integrated suite of products that reinforce one another in a "virtuous circle".
Canonical has... Ubuntu, one of dozens of Linux distros. (A popular one to be sure, but nothing that special.)
Because the required ingredient of the "consumer desktop" is plenty of ISVs and plenty of ISVs need uniform platform.
That will never happen in Linux. Its users are simply too ornery and opinionated (and that's a good thing, btw.) If you want to be a Linux ISV as my company is, you have to deal with that fact. It's not the end of the world. (I don't know how old you are, but I've been following the UNIX wars since the early 1980's. You should learn from history that UNIX/Linux users tend to be adamant about what they like and unwilling to be herded along by software developers.)
I don't see the need to introduce third major flavor of Linux (in addition to KDE4 and GNOME3
KDE and GNOME are not "flavors" of Linux. They're basically overgrown window managers. I use neither KDE nor GNOME, yet KDE and GNOME applications run just fine on my desktop (XFCE4). It's not like you need One True Desktop to rule the world to run Linux.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 12:11 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (5 responses)
Right. And this is what they are trying to fix. But you need it to get adoption on desktop. Thankfully Microsoft splintered it's OS, so you don't need total uniformity, but as long as you must test your program with different settings to satisfy more then trivial percent of user... Linux will lose. When (and if) ISVs will start closing bugs with "I'm using XFCE4" text as "WONTFIX, please try with Unity instead" we'll be able to say that yes, first step on the road to the world domination on desktop is achieved. Linux won server when it dropped all incompatible versions of kernel, libc, c compiler (gcc 2.96 vs pgcc vs ... shudder): when it become easier to develop for Linux rather then for Unix. Sadly it only happened on the lowest level of stack. Upper levels are still in disarray. Infrastructure becomes more and more standard, but upper echelons of UI are wildly different - and this is extremely bad thing from ISVs POV. I don't really see why duplication of effort and myriads of half-backed offers are better then few solid solutions is "a good thing", but I'm not sure it'll continue forever. Till it continues most ISVs will ignore Linux. Yes, few ISVs will decide to "deal with it", but most will wait. I'm not sure how it'll be fixed: may be Ubuntu will become so popular it'll be "standard-de-facto", may be it'll adopt Dalvik and make it possible to run Android software, may be something else will happen, but I just don't see Ubuntu adopting the philosophy "users are simply too ornery and opinionated - and that's a good thing". From the day 1 when they decided to adopt GNOME and not include KDE they did things this way. Ubuntu was always about mainstream consumer desktop, not about few stray Linux users. The fact that it didn't achieve these goals yet does not mean it should or would abandon it.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 12:54 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (4 responses)
Thankfully Microsoft splintered it's OS, so you don't need total uniformity, but as long as you must test your program with different settings to satisfy more then trivial percent of user... Linux will lose.
Writing apps that work across a variety of window manager and desktops is a solved problem. It was solved decades ago. But because of the continual reinvention of the wheel by GNOME and KDE and their conscious or unconscious decisions to deprecate decades of X Window and UNIX tradition, it becomes annoying.
And completely revamping the UI serves no useful purpose as far as making it easier to write cross-desktop applications. With Unity, GNOME is diverging even further from other desktops and causing even more confusion and fragmentation.
I don't really see why duplication of effort and myriads of half-backed offers are better then few solid solutions is "a good thing"
"Half baked?" KDE users seem to think that KDE is a fine desktop. I happen to think that XFCE4 is great. And I'm sure many GNOME 2.x users are perfectly happy with it. A huge change of direction in UI is not necessary and not useful. It's simply the result of self-absorbed developers scratching their own itch. [There's nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, but don't pretend it's part of a noble effort to unify the Linux desktop and increase Linux adoption.]
Linux UI developers need to learn a few things: Linux on the desktop is niche, is likely to remain niche, and there's nothing wrong with that. They also need to learn that major changes in UI are very unlikely to attract people away from non-Linux systems, but are quite likely to annoy existing users. And they also need to learn that GNOME, KDE and XFCE alone cannot dictate to others the direction of UI development, so there is absolutely zero chance of a One True Linux UI. Rather, GNOME, KDE, XFCE et al. should work together on incremental improvements, unification of look-and-feel and updating of core desktop conventions so that ISVs can more easily write cross-desktop applications. I know there's already a lot of this work going on. Unity is a step in the wrong direction, creating divergence instead of convergence.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 13:32 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
Solved? I think not. If by solved you mean "you can run them... somehow" then yes. If by solved you mean "you can run them... and you can use the same UI in all of them" then no - it was not solved back then and it's not solved now. Even MacOS have not solved it fully, but it comes close... unless you'll run X Window System and the ported zoo - which few people do. Right. But it was never a goal. I'm perfectly fine with Ubuntu Lucid. I'm quite sure I'll be happy with Ubuntu 12.04 too (I don't yet know how it'll be called). I think they finally understood that. The solution? Stop trying to unify Linux. Create separate branch which will have unified look and feel, where all programs will work in the same way and where the whole thing will be "bigger then the sum of parts". Kinda like what Google did with Linux for the mobiles. Ubuntu does not have the resources Google has so it can not to redo everything at once - they are revamping Ubuntu desktop one piece at time instead. I'm not sure I like all their changes but I know I don't like "Linux zoo" even more. Heck, I wanted to abandon Linux for MacOS, but found that it's too difficult to live without real hardware Home/End/PgUp/PgDn keys. I still might if this "Linux on the desktop is niche, is likely to remain niche, and there's nothing wrong with that" hoopla will continue. They are trying to do something for last ten years. The end result is still a mess. Both from API point of view and from UI point of view. This is risky step, true. But if they'll find out (as they hope) that their vision is shared by most Linux users (because most Linux users will be Ubuntu users) then in few years time network effect will drive all other efforts away (they will remain a niche players but few users will care... and most ISVs will not care either) and the problem of Linux desktop UI unification will finally be solved (in practical terms). I'm not sure it'll work - but it's interesting approach nonetheless.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 13:53 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (2 responses)
Solved? I think not. If by solved you mean "you can run them... somehow" then yes.
That is what I meant.
you can use the same UI in all of them" then no - it was not solved back then and it's not solved now.
As you note, that (non-)problem is not solved on Windows or Mac OS X either.
This is risky step, true. But if they'll find out (as they hope) that their vision is shared by most Linux users (because most Linux users will be Ubuntu users) then in few years time network effect will drive all other efforts away...
I doubt that will happen for a number of reasons. First, while Ubuntu may have a lot of users, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination completely drive the direction of Linux. Secondly, with open-source software, niche systems can survive an awfully long time because there is no economic pressure for them to die. (Witness the new release of FVWM.) Third, and most significantly, do you really think Ubuntu will be happy with Unity after a while? I bet not. They'll revamp it again and again, changing directions time after time. This is classic Corel behaviour and is a recipe for disaster.
Sometimes you have to avoid change just for the sake of change and concentrate on incremental improvements.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 20:44 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's mostly solved. There are different degrees. I can tolerate different interface in one or two my main tools (I interact with them for a long time every day so even if they are somehow strange and unique - I'll adopt), I can tolerate it if I have no alternative (like if the program I really need is only available in a form with non-standard interface), but in general I prefer a platform which supports unified look-and-feel. I've used Linux on servers for years but only switched to it on desktop with Ubuntu Lucid (the only reason why I've switched to Ubuntu Lucid and not to MacOS is because I really feel lost without hardware Home/End/PgUp/PgDn keys... I still might if Ubuntu will screw up too bad). I think they finally understood that. That's why they decided to abandon their tries to talk with other parties and concentrated on growing the userbase: if Ubuntu will have enough users then the network effect will drive the ISVs to Ubuntu as well. At this point it'll be not important what exactly will happen in "wide, wild Linux world": they can borrow interesting libraries and components from it but otherwise they can just ignore it. Yet the exact same model works just fine for Adobe (Photoshop and Illustrator), Apple (MacOS and iPhone), Microsoft (Windows and Office) and numerous other companies. I think it's question of balance. Well... it looks to me like this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing. First they moved the buttons, then they changed the panel, then they moved menu, after some time they will change something else. All changes are small and incremental. I don't like all of them but I don't see nothing too onerous. Ubuntu is "Linux for Human Beings" - and human beings are not obsessed with minutiae details. They can switch to new layout given few years (witness Office 2003 to 2007 migration), but when every program offers it's own unique interface... they bail out. Yes, I know, there are picky and demanding *nix users - but there are so few of them they can be safely ignored.
Posted Apr 20, 2011 9:12 UTC (Wed)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link]
Posted Apr 19, 2011 12:37 UTC (Tue)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
No, but it does help if the most commonly used applications share a »look and feel«, which is where the added value of desktop environments like KDE and GNOME comes in. Microsoft and especially Apple have put very considerable effort into making their systems work as a cohesive whole, and if your plan is to get people to switch from MacOS or Windows to Linux you had better offer them a compelling user experience rather than a hodgepodge of different styles, even though applications from various backgrounds may all run fine on the same screen from a technical point of view.
In that sense it is misleading to refer to GNOME or KDE as »overgrown window managers«, when window management is only a very small part of what they actually do, and when in fact the window managers that come with these very large software packages can straightforwardly be replaced with other implementations.
Posted Apr 19, 2011 12:44 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
In that sense it is misleading to refer to GNOME or KDE as "overgrown window managers", when window management is only a very small part of what they actually do
Maybe. But as far as I'm concerned, window management is the only useful part. :) I like to get stuff done and have the "desktop environment" stay out of my way.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 15:08 UTC (Sun)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you dumped Gnome, it's of no intereset for you, surely... Besides, if some long-used feature has no place in the proposed way of doing things, or is a hinderance for some mayority (or even a sizeable minority) of users for little percieved gain, it should go. Sorry if it's your pet feature. If it really matters to you, you are more than welcome to work on putting it back (i.e., show a reasonable design, propose patches, give reasoned feedback through bug reports).
Posted Apr 18, 2011 17:40 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
If you dumped Gnome, it's of no intereset for you, surely
Why is that? Can one not comment on software unless one uses it? I slag Windows all the time, but I haven't used it in over a decade. :)
Sorry if it's your pet feature. If it really matters to you, you are more than welcome to work on putting it back (i.e., show a reasonable design, propose patches, give reasoned feedback through bug reports).
Why should I bother when there are alternatives? In the past when I was using GNOME programs, I tried to make a case for features I thought were sensible (for example, an external editor for composing mail in Evolution) and got nowhere. It was far simpler to switch to a different project and that's what many GNOME users will do.
If GNOME thinks they'll get a net increase of users, then I guess their calculations make sense. I am very doubtful, though.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 1:49 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
Those statistics are for operating systems, not for the number of people who use focus-follows-mouse.
Another thing: Most Windows users don't use FFM for two reasons: It used to be very difficult to enable, and even when enabled, it doesn't work very well. Microsoft can get away with this because it is a monopoly and can force dumb UI decisions down users' throats.
GNOME is not Microsoft. If you push crap at your users, your users will abandon you. That's the beauty of choice.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 6:00 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 16, 2011 1:39 UTC (Sat)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:50 UTC (Thu)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link] (4 responses)
Not only that, many applications implement it internally to the application in a way.
Just think about scroll wheel behaviour. You don't have to click on a list box for the scroll wheel events to go there. Scroll focus follows the mouse.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:45 UTC (Thu)
by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063)
[Link] (3 responses)
In Windows, scrolling requires the window to already have focus.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:46 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:16 UTC (Thu)
by dtlin (subscriber, #36537)
[Link] (1 responses)
(This might have been an option, or gone away; my KDE4 desktop no longer exhibits this behavior.)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 17:27 UTC (Fri)
by alecs1 (guest, #46699)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:17 UTC (Thu)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link] (7 responses)
Madscientist: I want FFM, and they asked me to code it!
The point:
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:28 UTC (Thu)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link] (6 responses)
clinton: FFM is stupid, doesn't even work, and the people who use it must be completely retarded! We know what is best for you!
corbet: actually it works well and has done for 20 years. It enhances my productivity and is now a requirement in the desktop software I use.
clinton: Seriously, trinkety 3D effects that require more clicks and mouse movement just to switch windows and workspaces is the way of the future!
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:53 UTC (Thu)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link] (5 responses)
Corbet has 20 years of habituation to fight against, why should he bother to change? It's perfectly reasonable that he doesn't want to. But that doesn't give you the right to have everyone else to adapt their work to your habits.
So trying again:
X wants to do software for a well defined group, that might be at odds with those who used unix for 20 years.
You the have to accept that those who create X also decides who their supposed user is.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:30 UTC (Thu)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link] (4 responses)
FFM users will just go somewhere else, and quite frankly, I think you and GNOME have made it pretty clear that you don't want people like Corbet or me around anymore. The "it's our way or the highway" message is loud and clear.
We will go to a WM that works, or where our mods to make it work will be appreciated. That's the beauty of free software, and I'm glad for that ability.
GNOME and Unity have made it clear they don't want FFM to work. Efficiency is not a goal, eye candy is.
The Unity global menu fundamentally doesn't work with FFM. I don't think there is any sort of fixing that can be done. They just aren't compatible - if your mouse traverses another app on the way to the top panel they you can't get the menu you intend.
I don't see any demands, just dismay of how it has come about and that the desktop we have used for so long doesn't want us as users anymore.
There are a couple of people here claiming that FFM is broken, useless and unwanted. A number of people have voiced opinions otherwise.
GNOME and Unity aren't the great steps forward they are made out to be.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 23:28 UTC (Thu)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (3 responses)
Personally I think the global menu ITSELF is just a wrong idea from first principles, unless you're on a pretty small screen. There's a lot of very good common sense in this comment for example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/6830...
However, that's a whole other discussion.
My first comment was just that there were three major usability issues raised during the process to decide if Unity was ready or not, and one of them (FFM) was not mentioned further in the summary. It seems clear that (a) there are a sizeable number of people who feel that this is an important regression in functionality between the Ubuntu 10.10 desktop and the 11.04 desktop, (b) the Unity team has no solution today, and (c) they have no plans to implement a solution.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 16:31 UTC (Fri)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think that solution would probably lead to what I call "electric fence syndrome," which is the feeling of apprehension one gets when wandering too close to an electric fence, or moving one's mouse pointer too close to a mouse-over javascript menu, or working with an FTP connection with a 15-second timeout. Agreed. I use a Mac at work (they took away my workstation :( ), and after a year of regular use I still find global menus to be a constant nuisance. I think people who have a deliberate workflow wouldn't notice the difference, but I find any unnecessary UI interaction distracting, or in some cases even irritating. I have a friend who maximizes all his windows and then minimizes them all except the one he's currently using. To change windows he minimizes the current window, hunts around on the task bar for the window he wants, and then restores it. It takes him about 5 or 6 seconds to change windows. Just watching the process makes me want to scream — it's like watching a 2-year-old kid throw a ball. "You can do it! you can do it! throw the ball!!!" I expect this is the sort of user Ubuntu is targeting. They probably don't have very may users like this now, which could be a problem for them.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 13:23 UTC (Sun)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (1 responses)
Heh :-)
However, it depends on whether you believe one of the main justifications for the global menu. By putting the menu at the top of the screen your menu becomes "infinitely high"; you don't need to aim your mouse, you can just throw it up the screen, since when it hits the top it will stop. If that's how it works then "electric fence syndrome" might not be such a problem.
Posted Apr 18, 2011 2:34 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:31 UTC (Thu)
by cmorgan (guest, #71980)
[Link] (4 responses)
While FFM is an interesting feature I'm a bit surprised at the usually positive crowd here complaining about the issue. Why not work together to implement said feature? Its ok to voice your opinion but don't think that because you are using FFM anyone else is. I don't know a single person that uses FFM, of course most use Windows...
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:37 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (2 responses)
Windows doesn't use FFM.
I haven't used Windows in a very long time, but I recall that Microsoft used to offer a "power tweak" package or something similarly-named that enabled FFM.
FFM doesn't work very well on Windows because Windows automatically raises the window that has focus. My Linux desktop works properly; the window with the focus isn't necessarily raised (although some apps like LibreOffice have a nasty habit of deciding to raise themselves unasked.)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 18:12 UTC (Fri)
by CChittleborough (subscriber, #60775)
[Link]
Posted Apr 18, 2011 10:31 UTC (Mon)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
FWIW, this is optional behaviour in Windows as with any sane window manager.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:52 UTC (Thu)
by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
[Link]
I do not know if there are reliable surveys that would replace the obvious hand-waving claim "nobody uses FFM". I do know that in my own scientific subfield pretty much all the major pieces of image-display software were designed for use in an FFM (or focus strictly under mouse) environment. That's not to say they are unusable otherwise, but it's a struggle.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:29 UTC (Thu)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (5 responses)
It would indeed be unreasonable to demand that FFM be implemented as a *new* feature, but that's hardly the same thing as expecting a fully implemented and useful interface option to be retained in later versions of the software.
Anyway, from the way they appear to be set on alienating their entire userbase one discarded feature at a time, I expect they will soon be left with only those users who lack the necessary expertise to select a non-default desktop environment. A given feature may only be used by 20% of users--but that 20% is different for each feature. If you repeatedly alienate 20% of your remaining userbase you will rapidly run out of users (<1% left after 21 iterations).
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:38 UTC (Thu)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
Plus Windows of course.
The Gimp does behave a bit weirdly with FFM on Windows (and slightly-less-but-still-a-bit weirdly in KDE for that matter) but some time this decade they're planning to release the single window version that should fix that and make using the Gimp a slightly less grueling experience.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:50 UTC (Thu)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:07 UTC (Thu)
by newren (subscriber, #5160)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:23 UTC (Thu)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 12:44 UTC (Fri)
by sorpigal (guest, #36106)
[Link]
Funny, that's also how Windows got its market share, if you s/desktop environment/operating system/.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:29 UTC (Thu)
by pljohnson3 (guest, #3749)
[Link]
I must admit I don't code, I would just have to switch to something which has FFM.
Note, I also don't use auto-raise.
Phil (a minority of one)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:54 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (1 responses)
I use FFM all the time. How is it "broken" on modern desktops?
(I use XFCE, so maybe it is broken on GNOME or KDE... but if that's the case, then it's not FFM's fault.)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 9:43 UTC (Fri)
by Pawlerson (guest, #74136)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:08 UTC (Thu)
by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link] (4 responses)
Not directed at Jason, of course.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:17 UTC (Thu)
by cannedfish (guest, #49561)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:21 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (2 responses)
Who knew 1990sLinuxUser read LWN? Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:52 UTC (Thu)
by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032)
[Link]
You must be new here. LWN is the place where graybeards hang out to reminisce about the olden days when men were men and wrote their own device drivers.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 7:55 UTC (Fri)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
I do think it's pretty obnoxious to simply dismiss a historically significant mode of user interface interaction with a wave of the hand, despite my thinking it some nasty usability issues.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:13 UTC (Thu)
by walters (subscriber, #7396)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:30 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:13 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (5 responses)
That link is terrific. It highlights the out-of-touch arrogance we have become so used to from GNOME developers. Thanks for the link.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:17 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:32 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (3 responses)
The link you posted was in response to this, which does not look particularly trollish to me.
Are you a GNOME developer? You're displaying some of the symptoms. :)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:42 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (2 responses)
Among its many choice quotes which fall squarely in the "troll" category:
* "Considering these points I think gnome-shell is a complete failure."
Let's call a spade a spade, please.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:53 UTC (Thu)
by walters (subscriber, #7396)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 10:58 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Look, when you have a HUGE user-base, the software you write is partly not yours, because you write it for them. You can get away with "it's my time and I do what I want" when you have, say, 10 users, but not when you have 10 millions. In that sense, even pointing them to the alternatives is disrespectful, because you're telling users you're more important than them. And let's face it, it's not even your project. GNOME is made of quite a bit of other people.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:50 UTC (Thu)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (2 responses)
Do you have evidence of this, or are you just making it up?
I've worked for many years as a developer on Unix/Solaris/Linux systems, and FFM is the norm for most people in the teams I've worked with. How did we get to be such a "tiny, tiny" minority all of a sudden?
In any case, as an Ubuntu user I look forward to trying Unity, but I expect I'll probably end up switching to KDE or Xfce for daily use. I may not be a UI design expert, but I know what I like. :)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:27 UTC (Thu)
by ceswiedler (guest, #24638)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:06 UTC (Thu)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:10 UTC (Thu)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:13 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:38 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (3 responses)
That is a non-answer. You can't continue using unmaintained software safely for very long and you know it.
A less disingenuous answer would have been "switch to something other than GNOME such as KDE, XFCE, LXDE, etc."
Posted Apr 14, 2011 17:45 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:49 UTC (Thu)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:55 UTC (Thu)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 22:40 UTC (Thu)
by jpnp (guest, #63341)
[Link] (5 responses)
Almost all of the UI decisions being made by modern, design-focused environments such as GNOME 3 and Unity seem to come from designers working with an idea of an average user. Someone who is looking to do standard office tasks and may have experience of Windows or OS/X. Many decisions are justified in those terms (and with that assumption are rational enough).
But this seems to entirely ignore their existing userbase. I know personally, hundreds of Linux users and they exist in a few niches. Maybe I'm missing the wide user base of non-technical users, but given the market share statistics I see quoted I don't think so.
My first attraction to Linux was its ability to be customised. I could see under the hood, I could play with it. This has morphed to "we deliberately chose not to provide that functionality as we think our way is better for average users, we're not accepting for patches and think more options would confuse users". This is so far from why I started in Linux 15 years ago that it makes me scream with frustration. Now, in principle that's the point of open source: I could fork, build it myself and maintain my own branch, but really for large complex software setups that's an unbearable burden on the end user.
There's nothing wrong with going for a wider market, as Ubuntu wish to, and I really do appreciate efforts by many to produce better designed, more consistent UI, but GUI developers would be better served by not forgetting their core userbase of technical people, programmers and tinkerers.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 3:40 UTC (Fri)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (2 responses)
But maybe I've worked in the wrong offices... One which had user installing Total Commander because Explorer was not very good, people using password remembering tools etc. The average user there would never even consider using something as stripped down as Nautilus in it's current or GNOME 3 incarnation. I'm talking about a government agency, a bank and a telephone company... Is it uncommon to have office users know how to use a computer?
Posted Apr 15, 2011 8:02 UTC (Fri)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link] (1 responses)
These are people who choose to use Linux for their day to day work, where desktops are probably the default choice of most of the distributions they're using (there are a variety floating around..) but the majority seem to be skipping the "desktop".
Posted Apr 17, 2011 15:52 UTC (Sun)
by sce (subscriber, #65433)
[Link]
(No technical personnel uses Mac or Windows here, only some from accounting and general overhead.)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 14:05 UTC (Fri)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
Oh, come on. Just compare Gnome Shell to whatever Windows you've got handy, and you will see they have almost nothing in common. Gnome 2, OTOH, is quite similar in concept with Windows XP and its ilk.
And pray tell, who are the UI designers to work for, if not for some idea of "average user"? Sure, I'd be thrilled out of my mind if they selected me (or some smallish set of people who have similar hangups stemming from VTs-on-80x24, or running screen, days; people who have fond memories of FVWM and TWM) as the one user they design for, but that just isn't going to happen.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 16:43 UTC (Fri)
by jpnp (guest, #63341)
[Link]
To be specific what I am saying is:
1) I have the distinct impression that designers are currently targeting fairly naive typical office/internet application users. See e.g. Ubuntu bug #1 and just today: https://lwn.net/Articles/438678/
2) The niche that the Linux desktop currently occupies is predominantly technical in nature -- even for Ubuntu. Desktop computing will probably lose most of its mainstream audience rather than this change radically.
I see Linux used by developers, sys admins, and people with specific technical applications (what used to be called workstation users); and I see it used by people with interest in technology (often hobbyist); I don't Linux desktop environments being used by general non-tech consumers.
Maybe there's evidence I've missed; I'd certainly be interested to be pointed to studies showing the make up of Ubuntu users (and Linux desktop in general).
Now, I don't expect Linux to be designed specifically for me, someone who before coming to Linux used DEC alphas and CDE on SPARCstations. But I do think it would be better for DEs to design for (and test against) "average" members of their actual user base, in addition to their desired market (one which I think is mostly wishful thinking).
Posted Apr 21, 2011 15:26 UTC (Thu)
by cdmiller (guest, #2813)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:08 UTC (Thu)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (4 responses)
Second, the statement that FFM doesn't work is just wrong. It works perfectly very well for all the standard applications that come with Ubuntu that I've ever used, and all the 3rd party ones as well. In the past some apps have had problems, like Gimp, but they've been long solved as far as I can see. I'm sure there are some borked proprietary applications that it fails for; heck that's true of just about everything.
Third, I know I don't have to use Unity and I won't be using it, in fact, due to these problems. Seems a shame but if that's the solution being offered then that's the solution I'll be accepting [**]. Or maybe I'll switch to Xubuntu, or back to Debian. I moved to Ubuntu because it gave me a desktop that was more modern and straightforward than Debian, was more stable than Fedora, and a LOT less effort than Gentoo. But, in Linux we don't vote with our $$ we vote with our feet. Feets don't fail me now!
Some may be happy to be losing the "whiners"... just remember you don't know what else you may be losing. One topic's whiner is another topic's subject matter expert...
[*] See, I can make up statistics too!
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:56 UTC (Thu)
by ovitters (guest, #27950)
[Link] (3 responses)
Further, you can enable FFM on Mutter / GNOME 3 / gnome-shell. Just a bit hidden at the moment, and considered a tweak, but FFM is not going anywhere.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:17 UTC (Thu)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (2 responses)
The problem with FFM is not about enabling/disabling it, it's about the single-menu-per-screen feature, inherited from Mac.
If you put the menu for the focused window at the top of the screen, not attached to the window that has focus, you destroy FFM capability: you (often) can't mouse to the menu of your current window without crossing some other window... which is then focused by FFM and now the menu at the top of the screen changes to that second application.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 1:53 UTC (Fri)
by mrons (subscriber, #1751)
[Link] (1 responses)
So would the "fix" for FFM be something like, disable FFM while the shift key is held down?
Posted Apr 15, 2011 4:52 UTC (Fri)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
The solutions mentioned in the Launchpad bug (delaying the change of menu for FFM until focus has settled on a given window for some amount of time for example) would seem better to me than having to remember to hold down a key while mousing.
Personally I'd prefer the ability to disable the global menu altogether. I really do think that for screens of reasonable size it will end up being more of a problem than a benefit. But, who knows? I've certainly been wrong before.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:23 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (5 responses)
FFS then. Go ahead and implement a fix.
Why is this such a horrible response?
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:52 UTC (Thu)
by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104)
[Link] (4 responses)
It is pretty much the same as: "We don't care if it was working before. Either fix it youself or go use something else".
Posted Apr 14, 2011 22:06 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
No, I wouldn't like it.
But that's not what is happening here. We are talking about how window focus can be changed, not whether or not window focus changing works.
> It is pretty much the same as: "We don't care if it was working before. Either fix it youself or go use something else".
No. That's not a accurate statement at all.
This Unity is a new development and the original poster wants a particular feature in it that does not currently exist. I don't think that's it is unreasonable for Unity developers to focus their time on features that are important to their goals.
In addition to this they are plainly willing to accommodate him. They are just not willing to be his slaves. This offends him, but I think that it's not that big of a deal really.
If 'FFM' is important and even if he does not have the capabilities to implement the feature himself, then it should be easy to find another people to help him. That is if it's a widespread 'itch' then it should be easy to find a 'itchy' developer that will help him scratch it.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 4:40 UTC (Fri)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
That's certainly one way to look at it, that Unity is "new development".
Another way, that I think would be at least as accurate, would be that in the desktop for Ubuntu 10.10 (and in the desktop of every previous version of Ubuntu, every previous Linux desktop distribution, and indeed every major X-based window manager for 20+ years) this feature was available.
Now I upgrade my system to Ubuntu 11.04 and this feature is no longer supported.
> They are just not willing to be his slaves. This offends him
Oh please, what rubbish.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 19:25 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
I don't think that's it is unreasonable for Unity developers to focus their time on features that are important to their goals.
Indeed not. And I don't think it's unreasonable for GNOME users to jump ship when features they like and have used for years are tossed out.
That is if it's a widespread 'itch' then it should be easy to find a 'itchy' developer that will help him scratch it..
Why bother? I took the path of least resistance and switched to a different environment years ago. That's the beauty of choice and the danger for GNOME. It can't pull a Microsoft or an Apple and dictate to its users.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 14:09 UTC (Fri)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
Funny comment, that one. I did fix stuff once or twice even before asking LKML about the issue in my days.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 1:04 UTC (Fri)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link] (13 responses)
I used it at first but I tend to make arm motions, even when I'm supposed to be sitting quietly at my terminal. I kept accidentally bumping the mouse so the window I was working in would lose focus. Needless to say this was frustrating, so I converted to click-to-focus and never looked back.
That being said, a lot of the advanced hackers I know favor FFM *shrug*
Clemmitt
Posted Apr 15, 2011 7:43 UTC (Fri)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (3 responses)
I resemble this comment (I first used X in the mid-90s, when FFM was still the ubiquitous default. It seems to me that the FFM model is fine if you've got a trackball, or one of those little strain-gauge joysticks in the middle of your keyboard, but with a mouse it's awful unless you've got a desk the size of Liechtenstein. It also seems to me that the actual usability problem with click-to-focus platforms is that they are usually also raise-on-focus.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 10:07 UTC (Fri)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link]
Aha! Now we're getting down to brass tacks. Doesn't raise-on-focus come about through combining click-to-focus with the (I assume) universal default of click-to-raise? If the setting was -- stupid example -- double-click-to-raise, perhaps this wouldn't necessarily be the case.
As it is I've come to expect raise-on-focus, even if it is "wrong behaviour" for a window manager/desktop environment. If it weren't raise-on-focus, it would feel strange to me after all these years and I'd complain.
Clemmitt
Posted Apr 17, 2011 0:47 UTC (Sun)
by speedster1 (guest, #8143)
[Link] (1 responses)
I don't understand about the mouse part -- a mousepad-worth of space is plenty of room for me.
Note: as mentioned by another commenter, I use sloppy focus rather than classical FFM
Posted Apr 18, 2011 10:24 UTC (Mon)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 18:58 UTC (Fri)
by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link] (8 responses)
Friends, I dare say FFM users are merely those who have not yet been 'saved' by sloppy focus. Try sloppy, there is no turning back.
* Per Wikipedia: "It allows input to continue to be collected by the last focused window when the mouse pointer is moved away from any window, such as over a menubar or desktop area."
Posted Apr 15, 2011 19:03 UTC (Fri)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 19:52 UTC (Fri)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link] (1 responses)
Clemmitt
Posted Apr 15, 2011 19:59 UTC (Fri)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link]
Posted Apr 17, 2011 13:26 UTC (Sun)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 17, 2011 13:51 UTC (Sun)
by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link] (2 responses)
gconftool-2 -t string -s /apps/metacity/general/focus_mode [mouse|sloppy]
Any previously focused window will lose focus if you mouse over the desktop in "mouse", though "sloppy" retains focus.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 16:12 UTC (Sun)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 17, 2011 17:16 UTC (Sun)
by dark (guest, #8483)
[Link]
I have strict focus, and when the danger of cats walking on the keyboard goes to threat level "red" I can move the mouse to the root window so that keyboard input doesn't go anywhere.
Posted Apr 17, 2011 14:54 UTC (Sun)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Personally, I prefer the XMonad and KWin behaviors of only switching window focus when the mouse crosses a window boundary. Input focus also follows window focus and the desktop isn't "no focus land".
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:02 UTC (Thu)
by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606)
[Link] (2 responses)
I'm a Debian user.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by cmorgan (guest, #71980)
[Link] (1 responses)
No kidding. Certainly something interesting is going to come out of this experiment and other projects may pick and choose based upon what they see was a success vs. failure with the range of new ideas.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:29 UTC (Thu)
by signbit (guest, #71372)
[Link]
They will pick and choose the users...
(I'm using OpenBox with FBPanel and it does all I need. FFM FTW)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:26 UTC (Thu)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 3:04 UTC (Fri)
by ras (subscriber, #33059)
[Link]
I recently moved to 10.11, to get better touch drivers primarily, but that move meant goodbye Netbook Remix, hello Unity. That first spin of Unity is a was a disappointing backward step. The vertical dock with application pins concepts seems like it should work OK on a netbook, although it uses more precious re-estate than Netbook Remix. But the implementation choices they made just suck. There are too many pinned system applications. There are 4, 0 would be about the right number given the limit space. The "Applications" menu is dog slow, and requires one too many clicks to navigate. The "Ubuntu" button (think Windows Start button) is a complete waste of time, as provides nothing that can't done with less clicks "Applications" and "Files and Folders". And perhaps the most irritating of all this to an long time Linux user like me is you can't fix any of this, because it isn't customisable.
11.04 had better be a huge improvement. 10.11 Unity is bearable, just, on a Netbook. On anything with a larger screen even Windows 7's complex and bloated interface is easier to navigate. Defaulting to it on normal PC's and laptops when Gnome 2.32 and KDE 4.6 are available would be a mistake.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 5:19 UTC (Fri)
by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 11:37 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 14:17 UTC (Fri)
by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 15, 2011 14:29 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 16:11 UTC (Fri)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link]
Posted Apr 15, 2011 14:21 UTC (Fri)
by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 26, 2011 6:05 UTC (Tue)
by raof (subscriber, #57409)
[Link]
Specifically, fire up CompizConfig Settings Manager, and hit the General options button. Under the Desktop Size tab you'll have # of workspaces and horizontal and vertical viewports.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 13:15 UTC (Fri)
by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709)
[Link]
I myself think it is pretty minimal usable environment. The menue bar/title bar switch is confusing but otherwise I cannot complain.
I am really not much into eye candy at all -- I am using xmonad with gnome at work -- and still I love unity e.g. because of the Super+AppPosition switching and the very good use of screen real estate.
Posted Apr 18, 2011 12:05 UTC (Mon)
by kov (subscriber, #7423)
[Link]
By that I mean that, from a free software promotion strategy viewpoint, we don't have a high risk of losing users from the freedom camp (they can keep using even the most obscure features by implementing them or switching desktop systems), while still building the possibility to gather more users in the wild without having disraction from that focus to support some specific feature if it doesn't further their goal.
All that said, many current users of GNOME are loving unity/gnome3. There's a lot of excitment, which is great for community building, and it's always good to remember that this is in-development software that will eventually reach maturity.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
And this, I must say, is why a number of people are increasingly disenchanted with "modern desktops." Some of us have used focus-follows-mouse for two decades or more, find it to be a more efficient way of working, and see click-to-focus as a strange conflation of two entirely different intents. If somebody breaks a behavior which has been established for that long, then tells the people affected by that breakage that it's up to them to fix it, it should not be surprising if those people go elsewhere.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
FFM works fine for me. Which applications "utterly fail"?
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
If you have two images open and the layers dialog as well, then the layers dialog shows the layers for the focused image.
So if, as I move the mouse from the image I am working on to the layers dialogue, it passes over a different gimp image window, the layers dialog suddenly changes to the 'wrong' window.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
I think it's a safe assumption--on their part--that the number of people who care about FFM might be immeasurable within statistical noise.
Or perhaps they believe (as I do) that those who care about FFM are statistically much more likely to be capable future window manager maintainers, and also are much more likely to be motivated to roll up their sleeves and try to fix things when one of their most beloved features is missing/broken. Hey, Gnome 2 got a window manager maintainer for a few years that way...
(However, I don't think it'll work for Unity since the copyright assignment requirements in my opinion will kill most any such initiative from individuals in the community.)
I also think it's rather odd that anyone would characterize FFM as "working" today since there are a number of applications which utterly fail when it is enabled.
I'd be tempted to argue that the number of applications which utterly fail when FFM is enabled is immeasurable within statistical noise. ;-) But then I might just be showing my biases, since I have learned of a few such applications, and I instead just count my lucky stars that I don't have reason to use any of them.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
It's your choice...
It's your choice...
Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?
Umm... no. When GNOME went off the rails for me several years ago, I just switched.
If GNOME developers take the attitude "we broke it; you fix it" then they'll simply shed users.
Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?
Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?
WOW...
Linux has a small but dedicated population of desktop users. It's not about to gain very many desktop users away from Windows, so it might as well strive to keep its existing users happy.
If GNOME (or KDE or any other Linux desktop) thinks it can go head-to-head with Microsoft [let's face it: MSFT users are the only source of non-UNIX users for GNOME to attract], then it is doomed. MSFT will steamroll all competitors in the desktop market and it's time we faced that fact.
Windows users won't care if GNOME's interface is twice as intuitive as Windows, twice as fast, twice as reliable and twice as fun. They'll only care that their pet applications do not run on Linux and abandon ship as soon as $SOME_CUTE_ADWARE_APP does not run.
WOW...
Why it didn't work years, then?
Apple is a marketing machine par excellence with a charismatic Dear Leader, unwavering focus, a massive cash flow and unbelievably zealous fanbois who are ready to snap up the latest in Steve Jobs Coolness.
Linux just doesn't have that kind of user base.
MacOS has enough commercial software, games and silly commercial apps to keep unsophisticated users happy. Linux does not.
Believe me, I'd love to see Linux grab huge desktop market share. I've used it since 1994 (and not used any other OS on my desktop since then) so I'd be ecstatic if it took over the desktop. But it won't. I'm just being realistic.
Why it didn't work years, then?
Why it didn't work years, then?
Well, they are working on it...
Canonical has... Ubuntu, one of dozens of Linux distros. (A popular one to be sure, but nothing that special.)
KDE and GNOME are not "flavors" of Linux. They're basically overgrown window managers. I use neither KDE nor GNOME, yet KDE and GNOME applications run just fine on my desktop (XFCE4). It's not like you need One True Desktop to rule the world to run Linux.
That will never happen in Linux. Its users are simply too ornery and opinionated (and that's a good thing, btw.) If you want to be a Linux ISV as my company is, you have to deal with that fact.
Well, they are working on it...
Well, they are working on it...
Writing apps that work across a variety of window manager and desktops is a solved problem. It was solved decades ago.
And completely revamping the UI serves no useful purpose as far as making it easier to write cross-desktop applications.
And I'm sure many GNOME 2.x users are perfectly happy with it.
And they also need to learn that GNOME, KDE and XFCE alone cannot dictate to others the direction of UI development, so there is absolutely zero chance of a One True Linux UI.
Rather, GNOME, KDE, XFCE et al. should work together on incremental improvements, unification of look-and-feel and updating of core desktop conventions so that ISVs can more easily write cross-desktop applications.
Unity is a step in the wrong direction, creating divergence instead of convergence.
Well, they are working on it...
It's all about your goals
you can use the same UI in all of them" then no - it was not solved back then and it's not solved now.
As you note, that (non-)problem is not solved on Windows or Mac OS X either.First, while Ubuntu may have a lot of users, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination completely drive the direction of Linux.
Third, and most significantly, do you really think Ubuntu will be happy with Unity after a while? I bet not. They'll revamp it again and again, changing directions time after time. This is classic Corel behaviour and is a recipe for disaster.
Sometimes you have to avoid change just for the sake of change and concentrate on incremental improvements.
It's all about your goals
> Yet the exact same model works just fine for Adobe (Photoshop and Illustrator), Apple (MacOS and iPhone), Microsoft (Windows and Office) and numerous other companies. I think it's question of balance.
Market cap and employees:
AAPL $309.92B (2 of 4683)
around 37k employees
MSFT $215.17B (5 of 4683)
> 100k employees
ADBE $16.98B (288 of 4683, 48 of 839 in Application Software)
>9k employees
Canonical (?)
320 employees
Spot the difference :)
Why it didn't work years, then?
It's not like you need One True Desktop to rule the world to run Linux.
Why it didn't work years, then?
It's your choice...
It's your choice...
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Although it isn't quite the same as FFM, Apple added scrolling-follows-mouse into OS X leopard.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
clinton: You can't demand them to do work for you?
corbert: I've used FFM for 20 years it works better for me, than other workflows I've tried for N weeks and it works in software X!, and you didn't code it in your new project Y! Your project caused breakage in X because you won't maintain it! You will loose users who use X!
Double (open source) standards I say. If it was Linus and linux it would be nothing but praise, and the right way to do it. Oh wait, they already expect you to do your own work.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
So it's given that they implement, say click to focus because this feature helps the majority target.
What's next? Do another feature which helps their target or implement FFM, because someone says he wants it, because that is his workflow? He might try to wrap it as 'breakage' or 'long established' feature, but it's all about him trying to make others scratch his back for him.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
For example, if FFM is enabled you could introduce a delay before the global menu is changed, when focus changes due to mouse movement (click would change the menu immediately of course). It's not ideal to be sure but it would normally be enough to allow you to use the menus.
Personally I think the global menu ITSELF is just a wrong idea from first principles, unless you're on a pretty small screen.
Modern desktops
> syndrome," which is the feeling of apprehension one gets when wandering
> too close to an electric fence, or moving one's mouse pointer too close
> to a mouse-over javascript menu, or working with an FTP connection with a
> 15-second timeout.
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
Modern desktops
TweakUI
Modern desktops
"Windows doesn't use FFM"Modern desktops
It's not the default. But Windows, just like other desktops, is more usable after setting FFM.
Instructions here and here.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
It's only "broken on modern desktops" if by "modern desktops" you refer to recent Gnome-based environments.
What do you mean by "recent Gnome-based environments"? Are you saying that Unity and gnome-shell both suffer from focus-follows-mouse bugs (I have to admit to being a bit behind and not having tried either yet)? Or are you also implicating metacity in Gnome2 (which would go against my experience, but perhaps you know of a specific issue I don't)?
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Long live FFM!
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
* "Honest speaking I've never seen such an unergonomic UI.... even KDE is better."
* "I think the Gnome project should merge with KDE since there's no
difference at all!"
* "If you're lacking ideas of what will be the major change in Gnome 3,
I've got enough of them to keep you all busy for the next 10 years"
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
I'm using FFM now on Gnome and it works wonderfully. The idea that something that has worked fine for so long is now broken so I should stop using it is just lame finger pointing. In the words of dear leader "just fix it".
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Will it be maintained fully functional in every detail for the entire service life of GNOME 3?
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Almost all of the UI decisions being made by modern, design-focused environments such as GNOME 3 and Unity seem to come from designers working with an idea of an average user. Someone who is looking to do standard office tasks and may have experience of Windows or OS/X. Many decisions are justified in those terms (and with that assumption are rational enough).
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
[**] I do a lot of open source work but nowhere near the desktop, so "implement it yourself" is a non-starter.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
> key is held down?
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
> particular feature in it that does not currently exist.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
> click-to-focus platforms is that they are usually also
> raise-on-focus.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
> one of those little strain-gauge joysticks in the middle of your keyboard,
> but with a mouse it's awful unless you've got a desk the size of
> Liechtenstein.
Only problem I could see would be with a playful pet cat who kept batting the mouse between windows whenever you let go to type ;)
Mice on small desks get jostled, and even sloppy focus is vulnerable to "oops, mouse got jostled over active area of another window". My preferred method of refocusing is the keyboard, which has the further advantage that it means I don't have to reach for the pointing device to change focus.
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
I used it at first but I tend to make arm motions, even when I'm supposed to be sitting quietly at my terminal. I kept accidentally bumping the mouse so the window I was working in would lose focus. Needless to say this was frustrating, so I converted to click-to-focus and never looked back.
This is precisely the problem that sloppy focus solves! You get all of the benefits of FFM, plus you can toss your mouse around... and still be focused.*Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Cats :)
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04
Productivity Unity
Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04