If you ever watched the movie “300” then you know that one of the supporting characters proclaims at one point that “…this is madness!” shortly before being fatally kicked into a deep, dark hole by one of the main characters.
That, I’m afraid, will soon be the fate of Ubuntu 11.04.
Will this be the fate of Ubuntu 11.04?
I’m sure you’ve heard by now that Ubuntu will be changing its desktop interface from GNOME to Unity in Ubuntu 11.04. I could not disagree with this change more, for a number of reasons.
Changing from GNOME to Unity is truly madness on Canonical’s part and I’ll tell you why in this column. The first page covers GNOME, Canonical’s reasoning behind this decision and Unity’s proper place. The second page covers what an absolute mess this may end up being and what the consequences might be to Canonical and Ubuntu.
What the Heck is Wrong With GNOME?
GNOME: A Great Desktop Interface
One of the things that puzzles me about this choice is the implication that GNOME is apparently not good enough to remain the default desktop interface for Ubuntu. Why not? GNOME is arguably one of the best, most comfortable desktop interfaces around. It has come a long way from where it started and it’s gotten better and better over the years.
I freely confess that I usually use GNOME when using Linux. Don’t get me wrong, there are other interfaces that are also quite good (KDE, Xfce, etc.) but I usually return to GNOME. It’s always worked very well for me and for many other people.
Canonical is claiming differences between their priorities and those of the GNOME developers, as noted in this article from Ars Technica:
Shuttleworth described desktop adoption of Unity as the “most significant change ever” for Ubuntu. He also acknowledged that it is a “risky step” and that much work remains to be done to prepare for the transition. The move reflects Ubuntu’s growing divergence from the standard upstream GNOME configuration and effort to differentiate itself with a distinctive user experience. During the keynote, Shuttleworth emphasized that Ubuntu is still committed to GNOME despite the fact that it will ship with Unity instead of GNOME Shell. He contends that diversity and competition between different kinds of GNOME environments will encourage innovation and benefit the GNOME ecosystem.
I also asked Shuttleworth why Canonical is building its own shell rather than customizing the GNOME Shell. He says that Canonical made an effort to participate in the GNOME Shell design process and found that Ubuntu’s vision for the future of desktop interfaces was fundamentally different from that of the upstream GNOME Shell developers. He says that GNOME’s rejection of global menus, for example, is one of the key philosophical differences that would be difficult to reconcile. Canonical has accumulated a team of professional designers with considerable expertise over the past few years. They want to set their own direction and create a user experience that meets the needs of their audience. The other major Linux vendors, who are setting the direction of GNOME Shell’s design, have different priorities and are arguably less focused than Ubuntu on serving basic desktop users.
Ugh! Talk about a bunch of self-serving malarkey! Give me a break, Shuttleworth. Seriously.
Nobody Want a Netbook Interface…Except Canonical
As you may have noticed, I write a lot of distro reviews on Desktop Linux Reviews and quick looks at distros here on Eye On Linux. I’ve never, ever gotten a comment from anybody related to replacing GNOME with a netbook interface. Ever. Nobody’s ever brought it up to me or indicated any desire to have a netbook interface on their desktop computer.
So Canonical’s decision is quite puzzling. Or is it? Perhaps there’s another agenda hidden in this decision?
Touch: The Tail Wags the Dog
I suspect, based on Canonical’s statements and on various media articles, that “touch” is what this entire change is all about. Canonical wants a desktop interface that is friendly to touch-screen usage. That’s fine as far as it goes, but even Apple (the company who introduced multi-touch in its iPhones, iPads, etc.) recognizes that the desktop is a different experience.
Apple has wisely opted to use touch via the Magic Mouse rather than introduce fingerprint-laden touch screens to its desktop computers (iMacs, Mac mini, Mac Pro). Apple knows very well that touch has its place on the desktop, but they have smartly opted to do it in a way that works for the desktop.
They have not, as Canonical seems to be doing, decided to change Mac OS X’s interface to suit multi-touch. Canonical’s switch to Unity is more an example of the tail wagging the dog, and it ought to reconsider this foolish decision.
Unity Has Its Place: Netbooks
Netbooks
Don’t misunderstand me here; Unity certainly has its place and that is on netbooks, not desktops. Netbooks are very useful tools for many people, and Canonical is quite right to support them with a proper netbook interface.
It is, however, important to note that a desktop is not a netbook and vice versa. The two computing experiences are very different and require a different approach in terms of interface design. What works for one may not work very well for the other.
Apple Understands Interfaces
Let me go back to Apple yet again for a moment, since Canonical as indicated their admiration of Apple in the past. Apple does not use a “netbook interface” for its notebook computers. Users of Macbooks and the like use a full-blown version of Mac OS X. Only users of iPads, iPhones, etc. get a different interface.
Apple knows quite well that a netbook interface does not fit the bill at all for desktop computing. The two things are apples (no pun intended) and oranges; a lesson that Canonical has yet to learn firsthand. How ironic that Canonical apparently chooses to emulate Apple on some things but seems unable to discern the logic behind a lot of Apple’s interface decisions related to Mac OS X and iOS.
Pages: 1 2
(28 votes, average: 3.25 out of 5)
Loading ...
This isn’t the first time that Mark has taken a divergent path that has bothered a large number of people. Enough of his decisions have apparently either worked out or swept the defectors away, but the total number of Ubuntu users seems to remain fairly even over time. The recent changes over the past year did lead a number of people to using Kubuntu or Xubuntu rather than Ubuntu. Kubuntu, in particular, in spite of Jim’s editorials against it, has deliberately distanced itself from several core Canonical choices, including the choice to change the icon order and the manner in which social media, Ubuntu One, and the Ubuntu Software Center (all considered positives by some, but negatives by others) were handled, so Kubuntu uses different art work and does not closely align its brand with Ubuntu except that it does use the same core underlying technology, just completely different interfaces.
The good news is that you can get alternatives, even within the Ubuntu community, so I am not worried or concerned about these changes at all. Besides, unless they block them, there ought to be ways to install the GNOME Shell, and I suspect a moderate population will do just that, no matter what Canonical does.
Well, if you wanted traffic, it sure looks like you got some with this one Jim! I think we have a lot of choices, and I’m glad to see another one, and I hope that people allowed the ads to be displayed as they viewed this site; it probably paid for the Internet bill with this thread alone – and I hope it did.
Keep making us think – even if you have something controversial to say. We don’t have to agree – though I do urge everyone to be respectful when they voice their opinions. After all, that’s what this section is – a series of opinion pieces. Keep it up!
Hey watch it buddy! My last review of Kubuntu was quite positive!
Yes, there are other options and I’m sure those who choose to will be able to run the regular GNOME interface if they want, but it won’t be the default any more.
Hey, it is OK if you generally prefer Ubuntu to Kubuntu and GNOME to KDE. It is no threat to me whatsoever, and I think one of the real strengths of free software is that we have many choices. I try many of them, and I have my favorites, but there are times when I use stuff that isn’t even my favorite because I enjoy the choices that are available so much, and really nearly all of the choices are actually pretty good!
good point brian. i understand marks reasons and i agree, especially since its his company to do with how he chooses. and so far his choices have been spot on. i like gnome. but i stress the current gnome. gnome 3 will suck badly for 2 reasons. no compiz and slow as he**. unity will allow compiz. hmmm, desktop with 3d effects i can choose or desktop without? the author of this post just seems to be spouting off. yep mac left the touching to its mouse. exactly! the author seems to think the touch stack is only for screens on ubuntu while other os have many devices. and as far as using a netbook interface on a desktop or laptop, why not? i have it installed so i can get used to it when i dump gnome(when it is gnome 3) and right now my only complaint is i would like some say in how the task panel is set up. how can one claim to have some expertise and yet be so inflexible? linux is about choice and right now unity is more linux than gnome.
I’ll reply here because I want my comment to be on the first page.
There are some things that I just can’t understand no matter how hard I try. And to clarify something; I am using Linux for a lots of years and I am senior member of lots of Linux related sites like LinuxQuestions etc. I speak about Linux in my home, on the street etc. whenever and wherever I can. I’ve installed Linux on lots of my friends computers. I helped to solve lots of their problems on their computers running Linux etc.etc.etc. and do you know what was all this years that I liked the most about it? It’s freedom! Heck, even my laptop which runs Fedora 14 has been named Freedom. Linux, GNU, Open Source is all about that. You don’t take away people’s freedom. You let them have their choice.
Would there be so many great open source projects if there was no freedom? Would we have GNOME? KDE? etc. So, if somebody, no matter if it’s one man or a company, wants to try something new with open source, with no harm intended to anyone in the Linux and Open Source community, I say, let them do it!
In a real example, Canonical and Ubuntu are not going to take your freedom to make a choice, they’re just gonna make one more choice. As before, you will be able to do what ever you want with your Desktop Environment.
Actually, that is something that we as a community need. We need new things, better things and nobody is going to help anybody if we keep on discouraging people who try to do that.
To make one thing clear. I have Fedora on my laptop and Debian on my desktop. I’m not even using Ubuntu, but I, damn right, will not be saying that Ubuntu is making the wrong move. No, quite the opposite.
And to finish, after all these years with Linux and as a member of the community, I can say that what we need is to respect each other more and try to understand the real essence of Open Source and Free Software. Criticism is always welcome, so that things could be better, but do not judge those who don’t have to be judged, instead try to encourage those who try to bring something new into this open world of ours, because whatever that could be, I’m sure that it can’t be bad, we only sometimes have to work on it to make it better.
With regards and respect to the Linux community!
Alan
It was a pleasure reading your comment Allen.
i could’t agree more with allen. he was right on the money!
This change wouldn’t bother me too much for my own purposes – I’m sure there’s a trivial way to revert back to the standard gnome interface. The real tragedy here is all the folks who have come over from Windows or Mac. They took the plunge, whether it was by choice or a friend/relative who dragged them into it. They started getting used to things and decided “OK, I can live with this” then BAM! Canonicamaniacal pulls the rug from beneath them. They are gonna be pissed when they upgrade because now the whole damn thing is different. Bad move ubuntu! Mint, here we come.
D.
Short Answer: Pfffffft
Long Answer: http://thirdpipe.com/?p=7937
I agree Canonical’s decision at this point is laughable… Because at the moment, Unity is a piece of Garbage… and I have dissed it many a time…. Although the Interface that is going to appear on 11.04 Desktop edition is not going to look like Unity…. It is going to be an implementation of Unity with a different interface… it won’t have that stupid annoying dock on the side etc….. Thank God
I don’t have much faith in Canonical as I see them make poor technical decisions over and over again and the software they produce…. to me, is a joke…… for the most part…..
And I can See 11.04 also being a half baked pile of garbage at best, being rushed and pushed into 11.04… but….
If they do manage to sort out the bugs, add the right features, and design it half decent…. Then I think it would be a great decision that will seperate Ubuntu from the rest and attract alot of new users over…..
That is thinking positively….. However, judging on all their past decisions I have major doubts that they can pull it off.
check out my channel
http://www.youtube.com/Linux4UnMe
You indicated that no one wants a netbook interface on their desktop computer. Well, by the screenshots I have seen and what I have read about Gnome-Shell (3.0), it is strikingly similar to Unity (except that Unity will use compiz and zeitgeist while Gnome-Shell will use mutter and not zeitgeist.) So, with either Gnome-Shell or Unity, you will get a netbook type interface if that is what you want to call it.
Guess I won’t upgrade to 11.04 until I absolutely have to. Then I’ll consider switching to a different distro. Amazing how some decisions are made in the computer world.
Dear Writer
You are a fool
Ubuntu will stil be using Gnome .
Secondly Gnome 3 will have Gnome shell as default And uunity is a netbook interface but 11.04 WILL NOT BE USING PLAIN UNITY
THey will use unity as a base and make a DESKTOP AND SUITED FOR LARGE SCREEN shell FOR Gnome
You’re not helping the object of your adoration with this kind of response.
It makes people think all Ubuntu users are rude prepubescent boys.
As for the article, well, Canonical decisions are always good for improving website traffic :) AnywaynI suspect Shuttleworth is just one very, very bored man with no particular purpose in life, playing around with Linux and toying with Ubuntu users just for the hell of it.
No amount of strategic or otherwise thinking seems to have gone into this decision. It seems Canonical were more interested in sticking a knife into Gnome than creating and offering something new. They were not happy with that census back then and the backlash. Also, the spin now is, they’re not forking Gnome, just putting something on top of it. In other words, they’ll contribute even less than before (as if that’s possible), and will continue to leech full steam ahead.
That said, I do wish this would succeed. Anything where Linux succeeds is good. But cellphone UI on people’s desktop PCs… it seems so random and pointless.
As we read in wikipedia:
“In April 2011 Mark Shuttleworth announced that Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot would not include the classic GNOME desktop as a fall back to Unity, unlike Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28desktop_environment%29
or here
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/04/ubuntu-11-10-will-not-ship-with-classic-gnome-desktop/
So who is a fool now? :p :D
Goodbye uBUNTU, welcome Linux Mint (linuxmint.com)
Bear in mind it might be (partly) politics. The Gnome guys didn’t listen to Canonical’s wishes on direction to take with Gnome Shell, so Mark Shuttleworth makes this announcement as a bit of scare tactic to exert more control over the direction of Gnome. In effect there is no revolutionary departure if Unity vs Gnome Shell are the two available interfaces – if people prefer Gnome, they will click on that choice – and while Unity is inferior to Gnome and more buggy, it won’t be the default – altho Canonical will say it will be now for political reasons as i said above. I would say that Unity would be more buggy than Gnome but if the Gnome shell is also brand new development, that may or may not be the case.
Personally, I would rather have GNOME Shell than Unity now that I am looking back on this situation, but take a look at this:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/packageselection-desktop-n-specialized-unity-form-factor
Even though Unity *will* be the default in 11.04, there will be special form factors for the desktop and netbook editions. Look at that Launchpad blueprint for further details.
How can you judge on a product without even knowing what the final product looks like? I concider this as pure Ubuntu Bashing.
Quote from http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/10/31/unity-some-further-clarification-points/ :
Unity is the 3D experience, Classic GNOME is the 2D interface – if your graphics hardware cannot sufficiently run Unity, Ubuntu will present the 2D experience which is the two-panel GNOME desktop we currently ship, complete with all the Ayatana improvements such as application indicators, global menu, system indicators etc.
I think that this means that you can always switch to the plain old gnome desktop (maybe by choosing your session when you login).
*sigh* Gnome Shell is not Gnome 2.x.x… As much as Unity is a new interface to the user so is Gnome Shell. Compare Gnome Shell to Unity rather then dragging in Gnome 2 which both Unity and Gnome Shell will be using as a fall back….
Jim, the default desktop interface is going to change whatever happens. I suggest you try out GNOME Shell (the other alternative) before you draw any conclusions.
IMHO, GNOME Shell makes Unity seem brilliantly intuitive. :P
Hold on, out of everything that the ubuntu team have done to commercialize themselves this is by far the one that makes the most sense, this gives them full control over the desktop environment rather than relying on a charitable organization to supply the desktop. What company do YOU know that runs that way? Uniceif?