[Ubuntu-PH] SJVN reports that "Ubuntu changes its desktop from GNOME to Unity"

[hard wyrd]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:53 PM, JC John Sese Cuneta <
jcjohn.sesecuneta at laibcoms.com> wrote:

>  I think what most are arguing against this decision is the level of
> "migration" it will attract from Windows users.  Our experience with
> demo-ing Ubuntu with Windows users was really eye-opening - [1] they don't
> care if it looks cool; [2] they don't care if it feels fast; [3] they want
> something that they are already accustomed too; and [4] something that
> requires less (re)-learning.
>
> When we demoed Ubuntu, we made it look like Windows XP and Windows 7, as in
> customized as much as possible, and still those 4 I mentioned above still
> came up.
>

I don't quite agree with that move. We're trying to migrate them. Not
deceive users into thinking that it's the same banana or at least behave
like the old one.


> So changing the desktop to Unity default, based on our experience, will
> further make the Windows users to _not_ to migrate, nor even try.  "Unity
> for desktop as default" will not break that ice.  For netbook, sure, it _is_
> a netbook after all, we need space and speed.  But for a desktop as
> default?  It's a bad decision.
>

I don't quite think so. It requires relearning - yes. Relearning was not a
barrier to Windows users who purchased Macs. They just have to learn the ins
and outs. Sadly, a lot of users want to be spoon fed. I've been there.

If the new user interface will be a lot simpler and straight forward to use,
then why not? At least it has to be made clear to migrants that this is a
different operating system, and adjustments will need to be made.


> This clearly tells me that Canonical is done with the "come Windows users
> try us out" phase.  The recent decisions, from Jaunty onwards, were all
> signs to me that they have a new vision and a new objective.  They are now
> treating Ubuntu as an independent "OS".  A product worthy to be called an
> Operating System in and of itself.  Ubuntu is Ubuntu.  Ubuntu _is_ _the_ OS.
>

I don't think they're going to drop "Linux" because it still is a Linux
distribution. To me the recent decisions were to make it a bit more
recognizable than "just another Linux distro". How will it distinguish
itself from the rest? It's still Linux but something will need to be done as
far as risks and bold moves are concerned.


> Compare that to say Debian: Debian is the distro, Linux is the OS, hence
> "Debian Linux".  Canonical look to me to be aiming for something like this:
>
> Person A: "What's your OS?"
> Person B: "Linux"
> Person A: "What distro?"
> Person B: "Debian" or some other distro…
> Person A: "How about you?"
> Person C: "Me? My OS is Ubuntu"
> Person B: "That's the distro, you should say Linux"
> Person C: "Huh?  What is Linux?  My OS is Ubuntu not Linux, whatever that
> is"
>
> They're repositioning Ubuntu down that path (or up that future).  It's done
> being an "alternative", it's done being a "gateway to Linux".  That's why
> they're deciding on major changes that many people are reacting against,
> like this one now.
>

This is still relatively speculation at this point in time.


> For us geeks, again, for "us geeks", it is as easy as installing whatever
> DE and DE-shell we want to use.  For the average user, most of them are not
> comfortable with that, doesn't have time to learn and tinker and break their
> machines, and whatever reason why they are still an "average user".  There
> are people built for building skyscrapers and people made to be just
> end-users of those skyscrapers.  And there are people with plenty of time on
> their hands, and people who just wants everything familiar so they bother
> not with reading this and that just to do this and that.
>

Exactly. Is Unity that complicated to use? Was the install that complicated?
Let's recall what have been the greater barrier to Linux adoption? It's not
the user's capacity to re-learn stuff.

The phase where Canonical is now is for those with time on their hands to
> learn something new.  And to some extent, the people who build buildings not
> the people who lives/use the end product.
>

Thing is it is human nature to be cautious stepping out of comfort zones.
And a lot of users were so used to M$ products considering that they have
used them since primary, high school, and college. That in itself will prove
a challenge to letting them switch.

Is it a good move?  Only time can tell.  Or maybe the question is: Is it the
> right time to do this?
>

Again, people can only speculate for now.


> Right now, the popular OS are: Mac (for Unix, lolz), Windows, and Linux.
> Most are mis-informed about the name/brand "Linux" but not with "Ubuntu".  I
> only hope that the good reputation they have built behind the brand "Ubuntu"
> will bring the product to greater heights and success with the new path and
> future they want to bring it to.
>
> Maybe one day it will be like this: Mac, Windows, and Ubuntu.  ^_^
>

I hope not.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Penguin, penguin, and more penguin !"

www.madforubuntu.com
baudizm.blogsome.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ph/attachments/20101026/a3276eef/attachment.html>