- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Mark Shuttleworth: "This is not a democracy"
|
|
|
Comments (33)
13 earlier comments in the full thread.
I guess I never learned to read long names made up of curly random letters and number between curly braces. On the other hand, if you have a good gui application that makes it possible to configure Gnome fully I'm willing to try it out.
@bigg: Then you better move to something else right now.
I have already seriously toyed with that idea and even had a bout of hopping around. I love what Ubuntu is doing right, but they also have a lot that is not right in my eyes. Mono, the Yahoo/Bing thing, tying Ubuntu evermore to Ubuntu cloud services. Now that "We claim the right window space and we won't tell you what for, but you better live with it, because we ain't gonna change it back." thing.
The problem is that "moving house" is a nuissance and I'm lazy.
@Cabreh: So, you'll leave it on the left I guess.
For now on my test installation, but when I'm going to leave something... it might very well be Ubuntu. If they don't start telling what they want the right corner for real soon, Lucid Lynx will mark the end of my buntu experience.
The point is not that changing a detail is hard or insurmountable. The point is that I preferably don't have to change too much. where does the list of "easily" changeble items end? I won't go back to Windows style installation. Spend an hour to install the OS and then spend a week setting config options until the thing works as I want. It is easier to just switch to something that has that out of the box.
@KernelSheppard: As Mark Shuttleworth said, if you don't like their decisions on something, then you need to get involved.
What more can a non-paying end-user do than make their dislike heard? I'm being fairly quiet about this and I'm not going to get involved above stating my dislike. I don't have ambitions to join Canonical (paid or unpaid), I'm very happy where I currently work. I can make my position clear and I am already considering scratching my itch. Mark can do what he wants with his plaything, he'll just have to do it without me and my support for his OS.
Crying about it won't change anything.
No, that is for sure. Mark S. made it perfectly clear that Ubuntu is Canonical's corporate distro. I have no problems with a corporately run distro, but please, don't waive about community, open, merrit and more of that feel good blah blah. Sooner or later, your colors will show.
I have already seriously toyed with that idea and even had a bout of hopping around. I love what Ubuntu is doing right, but they also have a lot that is not right in my eyes. Mono, the Yahoo/Bing thing, tying Ubuntu evermore to Ubuntu cloud services. Now that "We claim the right window space and we won't tell you what for, but you better live with it, because we ain't gonna change it back." thing.
The problem is that "moving house" is a nuissance and I'm lazy.
@Cabreh: So, you'll leave it on the left I guess.
For now on my test installation, but when I'm going to leave something... it might very well be Ubuntu. If they don't start telling what they want the right corner for real soon, Lucid Lynx will mark the end of my buntu experience.
The point is not that changing a detail is hard or insurmountable. The point is that I preferably don't have to change too much. where does the list of "easily" changeble items end? I won't go back to Windows style installation. Spend an hour to install the OS and then spend a week setting config options until the thing works as I want. It is easier to just switch to something that has that out of the box.
@KernelSheppard: As Mark Shuttleworth said, if you don't like their decisions on something, then you need to get involved.
What more can a non-paying end-user do than make their dislike heard? I'm being fairly quiet about this and I'm not going to get involved above stating my dislike. I don't have ambitions to join Canonical (paid or unpaid), I'm very happy where I currently work. I can make my position clear and I am already considering scratching my itch. Mark can do what he wants with his plaything, he'll just have to do it without me and my support for his OS.
Crying about it won't change anything.
No, that is for sure. Mark S. made it perfectly clear that Ubuntu is Canonical's corporate distro. I have no problems with a corporately run distro, but please, don't waive about community, open, merrit and more of that feel good blah blah. Sooner or later, your colors will show.
All this fuss over a couple of buttons being moved? Get over yourselves! ;~)
@DiBosco:
It isn't just a matter of a couple buttons being moved. It's the fact that Mr. Shuttleworth himself put a BIG HONKING QUESTION MARK over the reason why.
Oh, wait, there's a smiley there. Never mind.
It isn't just a matter of a couple buttons being moved. It's the fact that Mr. Shuttleworth himself put a BIG HONKING QUESTION MARK over the reason why.
Oh, wait, there's a smiley there. Never mind.
Interesting. I just went to the Ubuntu website. It says "If you want to help us test it, download beta 1 now. We appreciate your feedback and support"
This is an appropriate time for an extension of the middle finger. If Mark is so smart, he can do it himself. Why would I waste my time improving his for profit OS? He's like a dog biting the hand that feeds him.
This is an appropriate time for an extension of the middle finger. If Mark is so smart, he can do it himself. Why would I waste my time improving his for profit OS? He's like a dog biting the hand that feeds him.
Umm. Isn't feedback something like voting? If you don't do those things, should you really complain about the interface/who got elected?
I think the main reason for the buttons originally being placed on the right as opposed to the left has never been mentioned. Most people seem to assume it was just to copy Windows. However it is much more likely the originators realized that the close button would be too close to the menu items leading to people closing an application when they meant to open a menu.
This is why I will move mine. I'm getting older now, eyes fading, maybe hands shaking before many years, so I don't want them on the left.
I think the main reason for the buttons originally being placed on the right as opposed to the left has never been mentioned. Most people seem to assume it was just to copy Windows. However it is much more likely the originators realized that the close button would be too close to the menu items leading to people closing an application when they meant to open a menu.
This is why I will move mine. I'm getting older now, eyes fading, maybe hands shaking before many years, so I don't want them on the left.
I've just set up 10.04 in a VM, the new buttons on the left looks rather ugly, somewhat like a bad copy of a Mac window. Unfortunately the VBox additions, don't seem to work, so I can't increase the sceen size to anything useful, so I can't do much with it.
How come it doesn't work? Maybe it doesn't support latest Ubuntu 10 yet? Did you "Enable 3D Acceleration" and mount the additions disc and run "VBoxLinuxAdditions.run" as root?
I think its pretty simple to solve this whole debacle. They should just pop up a dialog after user log in for the first time and ask "Do you want to customize your desktop now?" Then show a GUI interface that they can enable desktop icons, change buttons positions, back ground, theme, etc. Just add the option to the current Appearance Preferences.
I think its pretty simple to solve this whole debacle. They should just pop up a dialog after user log in for the first time and ask "Do you want to customize your desktop now?" Then show a GUI interface that they can enable desktop icons, change buttons positions, back ground, theme, etc. Just add the option to the current Appearance Preferences.
Quoting:Maybe it doesn't support latest Ubuntu 10 yet? Did you "Enable 3D Acceleration" and mount the additions disc and run "VBoxLinuxAdditions.run" as root?
I did indeed. I do a lot of set ups in Virtualbox, so no I didn't fail to do that. I suspect it doesn't support the new kernel. which is strange as the kernel modules are built against the installed kernel.
Quoting:They should just pop up a dialog after user log in for the first time and ask "Do you want to customize your desktop now?" Then show a GUI interface that they can enable desktop icons, change buttons positions, back ground, theme, etc. Just add the option to the current Appearance Preferences.
Shuttlworth has plans for the empty space that is created by moving the buttons to the left, and I suspect it has little to nothing to do with allowing you me or Aunt Hilda to put those buttons back there.
At the moment, putting the buttons back to the left hand corner is as simple as changingthe button-layout value, as described elsewhwere on LXer from maximize,minimize,close: to :minimize,maximize,close.
Being able to do that easily may change by the time 1.04 is released, or in future releases if Shuttleworth has his way.
Since he hasn't said what sort of things he would like to replace the current buttons with, it's hard to judge the value of the change to users of Ubuntu. At the moment it seems quite arbitrary, and little more than a way to make Ubuntu appear like a cheap copy of OSX.
Being able to do that easily may change by the time 1.04 is released, or in future releases if Shuttleworth has his way.
Since he hasn't said what sort of things he would like to replace the current buttons with, it's hard to judge the value of the change to users of Ubuntu. At the moment it seems quite arbitrary, and little more than a way to make Ubuntu appear like a cheap copy of OSX.
Ubuntu's No. 1 problem is that if it builds for the fanboy, he is happy; but if it doesn't build for the Windows/Mac user, they'll never even consider making the switch. Can one system satisfy both?
Interestingly the Netbook remix version works fine with VirtualBox's Additions.
I can get it display a nice 1360 by 768 screen, a screen size popular on the 11 in netbooks.
I can get it display a nice 1360 by 768 screen, a screen size popular on the 11 in netbooks.
Quoting:Ubuntu's No. 1 problem is that if it builds for the fanboy, he is happy; but if it doesn't build for the Windows/Mac user, they'll never even consider making the switch. Can one system satisfy both?Create a separate Fanboy Edition?
Sorry, its getting a bit late here.
Steven: while I agree with your overall logic, this particular example doesn't really fit. The changes being made in this example make the UI more akin to MacOSX, not Windows, so I don't think you can really argue that it's tailoring the UI to attract Windows users.
I'd also argue that MacOSX has a fairly small user-base (and they are generally in love with Apple for being Apple, so are less likely to switch) and so making a UI more like MacOSX in an effort to attract Mac users is a waste of time and effort.
That said, of course, changing the UI to look more like Mac because it has some real benefit to usability is a different story.
I don't know what inspired this particular change to the Ubuntu UI, but I hope it wasn't "to attract Mac users" or "because the Mac UI is perfect and thus we should blindly copy it".
Canonical hired a number of UI designers ~9 months or more ago who have been working on the Papercuts thing (which I had started out reading over, but can't be bothered to these days) and they seemed to be making a lot of good changes. For now, I'm inclined to trust that they know what they are doing and that this decision wasn't made just to copy MacOSX.
Anyone else remember when GNOME changed the OK/Cancel button ordering? Just as is happening in this case, a number of people screamed very loudly, but in the end, everyone was able to get on with their lives and GNOME wasn't hurt at all by that decision.
I'd also argue that MacOSX has a fairly small user-base (and they are generally in love with Apple for being Apple, so are less likely to switch) and so making a UI more like MacOSX in an effort to attract Mac users is a waste of time and effort.
That said, of course, changing the UI to look more like Mac because it has some real benefit to usability is a different story.
I don't know what inspired this particular change to the Ubuntu UI, but I hope it wasn't "to attract Mac users" or "because the Mac UI is perfect and thus we should blindly copy it".
Canonical hired a number of UI designers ~9 months or more ago who have been working on the Papercuts thing (which I had started out reading over, but can't be bothered to these days) and they seemed to be making a lot of good changes. For now, I'm inclined to trust that they know what they are doing and that this decision wasn't made just to copy MacOSX.
Anyone else remember when GNOME changed the OK/Cancel button ordering? Just as is happening in this case, a number of people screamed very loudly, but in the end, everyone was able to get on with their lives and GNOME wasn't hurt at all by that decision.
They want to get the Windows user who admires the Mac but a) can't or won't buy Apple hardware and software.
And you look at the "high-end" hardware market, $1,000+, and it's all Apple. That's another reason why Shuttleworth is focusing on the Mac look and feel.
For the most part, people don't use Windows because they hate Mac. But they sure do use Mac because they hate Windows.
And you look at the "high-end" hardware market, $1,000+, and it's all Apple. That's another reason why Shuttleworth is focusing on the Mac look and feel.
For the most part, people don't use Windows because they hate Mac. But they sure do use Mac because they hate Windows.
And some of us just laugh at all of them and use whatever distro/de/wm suits our fancy at the moment. :)
I personally have never found the Mac interface all that great at the times I've messed with one. Maybe I'm just not artsy enough for it. :P
I personally have never found the Mac interface all that great at the times I've messed with one. Maybe I'm just not artsy enough for it. :P
The one thing that Mac and Windows do that Linux distributions CAN do with a bit of work on the users part (but usually don't) is offer continually updated applications on a stable base.
Whether this is the best-case scenario or not, I really do think it's what users want and expect.
Sure it opens a case full of cans o' worms, and that's probably why most Linux distributions and BSD projects don't offer and encourage such an approach.
I'm not sure I completely understand PPAs in Ubuntu, but it looks like that's a way around being stuck with a single version of an app for an entire release cycle.
It's probably as much or more of a security nightmare as .exe files and whatever packaging system Mac uses, so for that reason I'm not personally too crazy about it.
Of course if you run Debian Sid, Slackware-current, Arch, or the -current or development branches of any number of projects, you get new apps on a rolling basis.
I guess the question I'd like to throw out to the group is this:
Is the notion of a stable release, with unchanging packages during the cycle, desirable for the server but not the desktop?
Whether this is the best-case scenario or not, I really do think it's what users want and expect.
Sure it opens a case full of cans o' worms, and that's probably why most Linux distributions and BSD projects don't offer and encourage such an approach.
I'm not sure I completely understand PPAs in Ubuntu, but it looks like that's a way around being stuck with a single version of an app for an entire release cycle.
It's probably as much or more of a security nightmare as .exe files and whatever packaging system Mac uses, so for that reason I'm not personally too crazy about it.
Of course if you run Debian Sid, Slackware-current, Arch, or the -current or development branches of any number of projects, you get new apps on a rolling basis.
I guess the question I'd like to throw out to the group is this:
Is the notion of a stable release, with unchanging packages during the cycle, desirable for the server but not the desktop?
> Is the notion of a stable release, with unchanging packages during the cycle, desirable for the server but not the desktop?
I would say that it is imperative for the server.
I would go so far as to say that once you have a functional and complete "server", never update it at all other than obvious security issues.
When something the server is doing reaches the point, in 5 or 6 years, when it simply MUST be upgraded/updated, then build a new one.
For the "desktop", it's completely up to the individual preference. I like Unstable. Or at least I did, and I will again.
I would say that it is imperative for the server.
I would go so far as to say that once you have a functional and complete "server", never update it at all other than obvious security issues.
When something the server is doing reaches the point, in 5 or 6 years, when it simply MUST be upgraded/updated, then build a new one.
For the "desktop", it's completely up to the individual preference. I like Unstable. Or at least I did, and I will again.
Quoting:Interestingly the Netbook remix version works fine with VirtualBox's Additions.Virtualbox version 3.1.6 is out which should support 10.04 now.
I can get it display a nice 1360 by 768 screen, a screen size popular on the 11 in netbooks.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical will have to face any/all consequences of their decisions (they need to keep any paying customers they have happy and also keep their contributors happy) and as much as some of us like to think we know better, I'd argue that they are in a much better position to judge than any of us.
As Mark Shuttleworth said, if you don't like their decisions on something, then you need to get involved. Crying about it won't change anything.