|
It appears that at the Ubuntu Developer Summit that started today, Mark Shuttleworth announced that Unity, the desktop environment for the Ubuntu netbook version, will be used in Ubuntu 11.04 to replace the upcoming Gnome Shell. My impressions and comments on the subject. |
The question
If you are a GNOME lover, you are getting the idea that the visual environment of your desktop is going to change, a lot. 2.32 (included in Ubuntu 10.10) was the last version of GNOME before version 3, which introduced several visual changes.
Do you want to see GNOME 3 Shell? Well, this is how it looks ...
But, the folks at Canonical don't like the changes made to GNOME Shell. The alternative? Unity. This is the desktop environment used in the netbook version of Ubuntu.
However, this interface has been criticized since the Ubuntu 10.10 release. There are many who have said that it is a very poorly polished project, with a lot of visual and performance errors; as well as a very unstable environment and, above all, rigid, almost impossible to customize according to the taste and needs of each one.
This is what Unity currently looks like:
reflections
What are, in my view, the reasons for this decision?
We go back to school: we must all wear the same uniform
By standardizing the visual environment of Ubuntu, it will create less confusion for users, especially new ones. In addition, technical assistance and support will be provided. The latter may seem of little importance to most of us, but not to Canonical, which is thinking about how to sell its product to different companies and organizations.
IPad philosophy to the extreme
If we analyze some of the decisions taken by Canonical in the past, we will see that they are perfectly consistent with this decision. That is, it does not seem to be a decision taken lightly.
I believe that Mark Shuttleworth thinks of the future of computing in these terms: what is succeeding? The iPhone, iPad, Android, etc. That is, that which is mobile, that comes with support for a touch screen and where everything is opened through large icons, attractive visual effects and, above all, that even an idiot can handle it without problems ( let's make it for dummies).
The truth is that, according to these parameters, the ease of use of the system and the visual appeal of the product seem to matter more than its content and real power. Does it sound familiar? Yes, it is the old promise of old Win 3.11 to even older DOS users. It is the same that Apple projects today, selling us quite bad software and hardware, but yes, very visually attractive and super easy to use.
And Canonical? I don't know, it seems to me that he is beginning to walk the same line. Let's take a look at some of his latest decisions:
First, it made significant progress in integration of social networks to the desktop environment. At the same time, he announced the launch of Unity for Netbooks. Then he worked really hard to include multi touch support. The building material is already there, what remains is to put the pieces together and make it the Ubuntu standard.
This would differentiate it from other systems (Windows & Mac, but also other Linux distros). Those who support this decision think: "Ubuntu finally becomes a system with a life of its own and stops being just another GNOME distro."
As if that were not enough, the effects of this decision are fully in tune with the Ubuntu philosophy: Linux for humans. Do you know something simpler than doing everything through the little buttons that appear on your desktop?
In favor of this argument, it is prudent to mention that a new icon pack was also announced at this conference, which will only be released in Ubuntu 12.04.
Precisely, the new proposal of GNOME 3, moves away from the user who does not have advanced knowledge and who for the first time uses a desktop. Perhaps for that reason, Mark Shuttleworth, our benevolent dictator, does not like GNOME Shell.
Visual changes and something else
In Mark's own words: "Unity is a GNOME shell (shell), even though it is not GNOME Shell (that is, GNOME 3)." This means that, While Unity will introduce major visual changes, it will remain just a visual touch-up for GNOME. In the end, Ubuntu will continue working with GNOME and running applications developed for it..
But, Canonical's proposal, I get the impression, is really revolutionary. They do not only want to change the visual environment but also, for example, the file management system, introducing the default use of Zeitgeist, a tool that scans everything you do and records all that so that you can later use that information. and find data and files more easily.
Let's face it, the traditional GNOME smells musty and old, the new GNOME Shell seems too complicated and impractical, and the old method of searching for files and folders, dating back to the days of Win 3.11, is now obsolete.
Something similar happens with the main system menu: the GNOME menu still looks like the Win95 one. You need to think of new ways to open applications. The alternatives? Include an alternate menu (for example, the Mint Menu), include a default Dock, wait for GNOME 3, or use Unity.
El MeMenu and the new windicators These are examples of Shuttleworth and his team thinking about how to revolutionize our desktop for a long time. Until now, they have been doing it bit by bit; it's time to put the puzzle together and see what's left.
In short, the need to redesign the visual environment and put an end to the one we are used to using arose a long time ago. The official GNOME answer is GNOME Shell; Ubuntu, Unity, Windicators, MeMenu, etc.
For the good of us all we hope that users are not the harmed ones and that we retain the last possibility to choose which environment we want to use. In case we cannot choose another one, different from Unity, surely many of us will abandon Ubuntu. Personally, because I think that although Unity seems like a good decision for netbooks with little screen space, it doesn't seem like the best decision for a desktop computer.
Finally, there are those who say that the decision to use Unity in Ubuntu could draw a new dividing circle among Linux lovers. I would like that, instead of continuing to concentrate purely on the visual, we make Ubuntu a more stable and solid system, which turns it into a true operating system and not a simple gadget.
What do you think? Do you agree to replace Gnome Shell with Unity?
If you plan to migrate, do it ...
I already migrated from UBUNTU to LINUX MINT 10 which is much better and STABLE
The truth is I am against Unity being the environment that will be used in the next versions of UBUNTU since it has quite a few flaws and incompatibilities with graphics cards as well as 800 × 600 monitors.
In this version 10.10, when it was installed, there were not many changes, but in some, the current requirements of UBUNTU CURRENT VERSION ARE THE FOLLOWING:
86 GHz x1 processor.
RAM memory: 512 MB.
Hard Drive: 5 GB (swap included).
VGA graphics card and monitor capable of supporting a resolution of 1024 × 768.
CD-ROM reader or USB port
Internet connection can be helpful.
Desktop Effects, provided by Compiz, are enabled by default on the following graphics cards: [101]
Intel (i915 or higher, except GMA 500, codename "Poulsbo")
NVidia (with its proprietary driver)
ATI (from Radeon HD 2000 model may require proprietary driver)
If you have a computer with a 64-bit processor (x86-64), and especially if you have more than 3 GB of RAM, it is recommended to use the version of Ubuntu for 64-bit systems.
But in my case when installing UBUNTU 10.10 everything was perfect until the necessary resolution of the monitor since one of 1024 × 768 is requested and I have an 800 × 600 monitor.
After seeing this and the new unity desktop, it means that UBUNTU will be more unstable as it is today and with much more bugs.
TODAY I MIGRATE FROM UBUNTU TO LINUX MINT 10 and what I can say is much better than UBUNTU even if it is based on it.
And ... Linux Mint 10 is universal in its requirements:
At least 512MB is recommended to run the LiveCD, although once installed it will run fine with 256MB of RAM. The space required for the installation on the hard disk is 2.5 GB, which is compressed on a 700MB CD. In the case of using the mint4win installer for Windows - which is available from version 6.0, and is based on Wubi -, a minimum of 256MB of RAM memory and a monitor resolution of 800 × 600 at least are recommended.
FROM NOW ON I AM FROM LINUX MINT AND I WELCOME THE NEWS COMING FROM UBUNTU.
I don't think they are as good as you say. That is my personal opinion. The soft. It is closed, it has a lot of errors (the one of the wifi one of them), it does not run flash, etc, etc, etc. Regarding hardware, for the same price you can always get something better (an HTC or a Nokia). What Apple charges you is to belong to the apple group. Show others that you are part of the select club of people who have it. There is no qualitative difference that justifies the price. The only reason could be innovation, but even the iPhone is not as revolutionary as it seems. In addition, many other phones (which we might disparagingly call "copies") far outperform the iPhone in functionality.
Well that's my opinion and I know it's not very popular with Apple lovers.
a hug and thank you for leaving your comments! Cheers! Paul.
I agree ... Apple sells its equipment that in itself does not differ from my laptop, an Intel chipset with a micro I3 ... the issue is that Apple adjusts its OS for "that" hardware that it sells ... It's not that it's BAD, it's the same as others ... The bad thing is the closed OS to run on what they sell you ...
Mac OS, like OS, is not flawless, not perfect; There is no perfect OS, and it is at the height of several GNU / LInux distributions, come on they are different masked Unix ...
For apple you pay hardware, software, brand; for GNU / Linux with GNOME masked no, and you have the same ...
Captivating answer: concise and accurate.
+1000 "likes" = D
I prefer GNOME over a lot more than Unity! ¬¬
As you say, hopefully users are not the harmed.
“For the good of all of us, let's hope that users are not the harmed ones and that we retain the last possibility to choose which environment we want to use. In case we cannot choose another, different from Unity, surely many of us will abandon Ubuntu. Personally, because I think that while Unity seems like a good decision for netbooks with little screen space, it doesn't seem like the best decision for a desktop computer. "
There is the heart of the matter, what I like about gnome is the customization, testing Unity I had some difficulties to put everything as I like it.
Now I use AWN without gnome bars and all good. I don't like the idea of unifying anything, because the needs of a desktop PC user are different from those of a netbook or notebook user. Although it is not that he is jumping for joy at the direction that gnome 3 takes.
I think everything would be better if at the beginning of the installation you could choose whether or not you want unity by default.
Excellent article, a pleasure to read you, as always.
You are right and I have already abandoned UBUNTU by switching to LINUX MINT 10 which is totally stable.
Canonical is getting more "Commercial" I hope not a next Micro $ oft.
Yes, especially because it seems that the next Ubuntu will not have the possibility of installing Gnome Shell ... it is a rumor, but if it turns out to be true, it would be very harmful for users, since it would limit our freedom and our ability to choose what we think is best for us.
THE WHOLE REASON IF I ABANDON THE TWO AS TO THE XP I LIKE IT GOES BECAUSE OF ITS STABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS L 7 FUNCTION FOR THE VISUAL EFFECTS. IN UBUNTU 10.10 IS THE FUNCTION OF THESE DATA THAT I SAY THAT IS WHY I USE IT AND WATER IT AS THEY WERE IT IN THE TWO “VISTA” SURE I RETURN TO XP
Very good uu
Didn't anyone here know that Darwin is open? They constantly rant against the system but don't read anything.
On the use of Unity in Ubuntu, well nothing, I use KDE in my Arch but it doesn't seem like something suitable for the end user of a Desktop. I think mostly of users migrating from Windows. Anyway, you know: Ubuntu is not a democracy.
And not only that decision ... In my case, if Gnome Shell and Unity don't convince me enough in terms of productivity in my system (honestly, I don't see my 22 ”screens with that) I'll change the environment.
Such as Enlightenmnet, XFCE, LXDE, * box or KDE. But that's something that I think Gnome people have to consider before releasing version 3, if they don't produce something usable I think a lot of people will abandon Gnome.
"Selling bad hardware." Do you know what any Mac product brings? They are all state-of-the-art products. The warranty lasts for a long time. Your customer service is terrific.
I don't see why you criticized the Mac like that. It's a company that sells GOOD Software and Hardware. The interfaces they seek to achieve are as intuitive as possible, seeking the comfort of the end user.
I think that "punishment" you gave Mac is baseless.
I don't like the Unity environment as it is. I'd better go to Mint Debian. I use Ubuntu-based Mint, but I think I already have to grow.
In my opinion, I think that Ubuntu's proposal was always focused on ease of use and easy handling of the distribution. What they usually call "aesthetic changes" is nothing more, it seems to me, than making the use of the operating system easier and easier. Surely in the Linux world many people prefer the more sophisticated / complicated aspects of compilations and etcs. that allow maximum customization, but Ubuntu is not made for that.
I agree that the Gnome Shell of the Gnome 3.0 is a bit confusing and, for me, of course, the plasma of the new KDE is impractical. Using Unity will likely have the same rationale for which Mint built its own menu. Hopefully, ultimately, all of this results in greater benefits for users. Cheers!
The nice thing about free software is that you can decide how to configure it, and if unity does not convince in ubuntu we will have other options (xubuntu, kubuntu, lubuntu) and personally I use ubuntu because of the simplicity of the desktop, gnome shell makes me cumbersome and leaves ease of use aside, so I hope the unity desktop is polished well and I can test it without problems.
Also note that it is not an option to stay with gnome 2.32 because it would not be innovative.
Long live Kubuntu
The idea of having UNITY by default in Ubuntu terrifies me, I think the same as someone said, that in the installation it asks you if you want it or not. I tried Unity in version 10.10 and it is a disaster, that which is ideal for small screens I discuss, since the sidebar is never removed and that already reduces space. When you open an application it appears in full screen and if you reduce it closes, when you open it again it appears large again. To go to my documents or change the wallpaper I have to do about three steps, in short I will be thinking about the migration ... maybe openSUSE.
The idea of having UNITY by default in Ubuntu terrifies me, I think the same as someone said, that in the installation it asks you if you want it or not. I tried Unity in version 10.10 and it is a disaster, that which is ideal for small screens I discuss, since the sidebar is never removed and that already reduces space. When you open an application it appears in full screen and if you reduce it closes, when you open it again it appears large again. To go to my documents or change the wallpaper I have to do about three steps, in short I will be thinking about the migration ... maybe openSUSE.
good article,
the problem is the bill-type ideology of doing everything for idiots and that ends up complicating everything, limiting freedoms and configuration possibilities,
What happened to kde from version 4? I think he went back a lot
luckily DEBIAN is still there, maybe it's community time ...
the latest version of gnome is 2.32, it is the one currently used by archlinux
Interesting ... something tells me that many will make that decision if Unity is not up to the task. Time will tell…
Since GDM changed the term "Gnome" to "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" things smelled bad ... I even thought Canonical would fork Gnome, since they didn't like their new shell proposal ... but no, the decision was the worst ... using a shell made for netbook's on a desktop PC is not the best solution ... Jobs thought about it and was smarter with his Mac OS X Lion proposal, he took the best of his iOS and brought it to the Mac ...
Can you imagine the Unity environment on a 21-inch or larger monitor? ... a disaster ...
Excellent article!!!
Just clarify that: Unity is not a desktop environment, the environment is GNOME ... Unity is a Shell and with compiz and if the modifications are given I think it will be a simple DOCK ...
“However, this interface has been criticized since Ubuntu 10.10 was released. There are many who have said that it is a very unpolished project, with a lot of visual and performance errors; as well as a very unstable environment and, above all, rigid, almost impossible to customize according to the taste and needs of each one. "
I agree, but let's keep in mind that the poor performance is due to the use of Mutter, which is the GNOME proposal ...
Ubuntu, as you say, will use GNOME 3 and this changes the traditional Shell that we see for GNOME shell ... Ubuntu rightly said that it would not use that Shell ... and now they tell us that it will use Unity as a shell ... And in a way I don't see it wrong, of course ... that Unity today doesn't seem like it can work ...
Let's be clear, with GNOME 3 what we know today as the dual-panel environment ends ... This Shell will be replaced by its GNOME-Shell ... horrible and unusable -personal opinion-. Ubuntu proposes, and as you say, it should not be run after Ubuntu's proposal, we have the freedom to migrate to other distributions ... But drawing conclusions today is hasty ...
Mainly because we are working on a different and better integrated Shell than the current one ... But if it were the current one, of course NO and I would look for the chance to use the traditional Shell, not even GNOME Shell ...