LWN: Comments on "Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04"

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

raof — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:05:56 +0000

The number of workspaces isn't hardcoded in any way; it uses exactly the same settings that Compiz has used for at least a couple of years.

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

cdmiller — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:26:22 +0000

Long live Xubuntu...

https://lwn.net/Articles/415346/

It's all about your goals

spaetz — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:12:31 +0000

> 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 :)

It's all about your goals

khim — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:44:28 +0000

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.

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).

First, while Ubuntu may have a lot of users, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination completely drive the direction of Linux.

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.

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.

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.

Sometimes you have to avoid change just for the sake of change and concentrate on incremental improvements.

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.

Well, they are working on it...

dskoll — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:53:25 +0000

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.

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.

Well, they are working on it...

khim — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:32:21 +0000

Writing apps that work across a variety of window manager and desktops is a solved problem. It was solved decades ago.

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.

And completely revamping the UI serves no useful purpose as far as making it easier to write cross-desktop applications.

Right. But it was never a goal.

And I'm sure many GNOME 2.x users are perfectly happy with it.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unity is a step in the wrong direction, creating divergence instead of convergence.

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.

Well, they are working on it...

dskoll — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:54:57 +0000

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.

Why it didn't work years, then?

dskoll — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:44:52 +0000

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.

Why it didn't work years, then?

anselm — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:37:24 +0000

It's not like you need One True Desktop to rule the world to run Linux.

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.

Well, they are working on it...

khim — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:11:35 +0000

Canonical has... Ubuntu, one of dozens of Linux distros. (A popular one to be sure, but nothing that special.)

Right. And this is what they are trying to fix.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why it didn't work years, then?

dskoll — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:29:06 +0000

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.

Why it didn't work years, then?

anselm — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:38:37 +0000

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.

Why it didn't work years, then?

khim — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:22:28 +0000

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.

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.

Linux just doesn't have that kind of user base.

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.

MacOS has enough commercial software, games and silly commercial apps to keep unsophisticated users happy. Linux does not.

It took years and there are still many times more software for Windows.

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.

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.

WOW...

dskoll — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:40:16 +0000

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.

WOW...

khim — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:57:03 +0000

Talk about clueless.

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.

Business does not operate this way. Business is supposed to bring profit. Existing desktop users don't bring a profit. That's the problem.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, but this effect somehow does not work for MacOS users. Yes, I know: the only explanation is RDF. Great explanation. Not.

It's your choice...

dskoll — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:40:11 +0000

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.

Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?

dskoll — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:37:14 +0000

Am I not allowed to discuss software unless I don't use it?

s/don't //, obviously. :(

Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?

dskoll — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:36:16 +0000

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

kov — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:05:12 +0000

The great thing about GNU/Linux is we can usually avoid the crippling idea that one size should fit all, and that goes way beyond features or configurability. It allows us to have desktop projects such as unity and gnome to go after new users by experimenting with new interaction models that even make them a bit more fit to the tablets space without fear of leaving users out in the cold.

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.

Modern desktops

nye — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:31:17 +0000

>FFM doesn't work very well on Windows because Windows automatically raises the window that has focus

FWIW, this is optional behaviour in Windows as with any sane window manager.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

mpr22 — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:24:05 +0000

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.

Modern desktops

bronson — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:34:25 +0000

It doesn't matter how high the menu is if it switches to another app before you reach it.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

dark — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:16:35 +0000

Cats :)

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

madscientist — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:12:40 +0000

I know there's a difference (I used FVWM for a long time which had both). I even believe that both are available in the underlying engine. However, my "Windows" preferences dialog has one option: "Select windows when the mouse moves over them". When I select that I get sloppy focus behavior. I'm not sure how one would switch to "non-sloppy" except by using a gconf editor. I don't know why one would prefer non-sloppy behavior.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

sce — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:52:50 +0000

At the company I work at almost all the developers use gnome and (a few using) KDE. From what I can tell the sysadmins are completely reversed, with almost everyone favouring pure window managers (e.g. fluxbox).

(No technical personnel uses Mac or Windows here, only some from accounting and general overhead.)

It's your choice...

vonbrand — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:08:58 +0000

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).

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

mathstuf — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:54:51 +0000

KWin has "FFM" and "Strict FFM" for sloppy and (standard?; I've only been on Linux since FC5) FFM. I have seen quirks in Metacity on CentOS (which is the only place I use GNOME) where the focus would also change when the mouse moves some distance over a window which I find...weird.

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".

Hmm... Then why all this vitriol now?

khim — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:50:42 +0000

Umm... no. When GNOME went off the rails for me several years ago, I just switched.

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?

If GNOME developers take the attitude "we broke it; you fix it" then they'll simply shed users.

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.

It's your choice...

dskoll — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:08:29 +0000

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.

It's your choice...

khim — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:59:57 +0000

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

clump — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:51:09 +0000

There's definitely a difference.

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

madscientist — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:31 +0000

Do any window managers still implement the traditional FFM? I don't think I've seen one that _didn't_ use the sloppy focus model in a long time. Certainly the Gnome window managers I've used all implement sloppy focus.

Modern desktops

madscientist — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> 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.

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

speedster1 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 00:47:08 +0000

> 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.

I don't understand about the mouse part -- a mousepad-worth of space is plenty of room for me.
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 ;)

Note: as mentioned by another commenter, I use sloppy focus rather than classical FFM

Modern desktops

speedster1 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 00:33:56 +0000

Positioning your gimp windows carefully (e.g. image windows side-by-side, layers dialog below both) is a small price to pay for a focus selection policy that is quite superior for most tasks!

Modern desktops

leoc — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:39:26 +0000

Although it isn't quite the same as FFM, Apple added scrolling-follows-mouse into OS X leopard.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

Trelane — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:59:27 +0000

No, those are green and purple, respectively. Given the context, blue should be abundantly clear.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

csigler — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:52:01 +0000

So... the blue bike shed is... focus-follows-mouse... ... no, wait, it's click-to-focus! ... Right...? ;^)

Clemmitt

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

dskoll — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:25:38 +0000

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.

Ubuntu reaffirms Unity plan for 11.04

Trelane — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:03:45 +0000

I disagree. The bike shed should definitely be blue.