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

Tue Oct 26 09:36:43 UTC 2010

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM, JC John Sese Cuneta <
jcjohn.sesecuneta at laibcoms.com> wrote:

>  Marked with ::
>
>  :: It's not really deception per se.  You have to consider where they're
> coming from and where they're standing at.  For us geeks, it's a
> no-brainer.  For them, it isn't.  Our brains function way differently than
> the non-geeks.  And most of the time, we geeks are willing to spend more
> time into reading, experimenting, learning, asking questions, finding
> solutions, etc.  They are not and they will never be.
>

Mimicking a UI of one OS is technically deception. And instead of letting
those users get familiar with a Linux user interface, they'll continue on
with the same thing from Windows.

It is exactly this thinking - users "will never be" experimenting, learning,
and asking questions - that made a lot of people call system administrators
as BOFH in the first place. As tech people - knowledgeable in the systems -
i believe it's the tech's responsibility to educate them, show them the
hoops, guide them through the ropes a little. Yes they do experiment, yes
they do ask questions, and yes they do find solutions as long as we are not
so uptight about stuff and give them a little lee way to explore (within
bounds).  Honestly, they're just so damn afraid that they'll break something
and afraid to earn the ire of the techs.

> :: You see, if we ever want them to migrate, especially offices, we need to
> see things from their eyes, from their perspective.  We need to think like
> them.  We can not just go to them, present and demo "our superior" product,
> and tell them every little and big thing that we can think of why they need
> to migrate to Linux all we want.  But if we can not address their needs, not
> ours but theirs, then they will never bite.  They won't even bother trying
> it out.
>

Exactly. Under a consultant's point of view, it's bad form to just jump in
without knowing what they want. But then again, when offering a Linux-based
solution, make sure that they know it _is_ Linux with UI that's reminiscent
of Linux and not some knock off of another OS, because that is definitely
misleading.

> :: Personally, I have more success in converting people to use Linux, or to
> be exact, Ubuntu, by presenting it to them based on what they need and what
> they are looking for in an OS.  I first try to find out more about them.
> Their habbits, what are their primary, secondary, and tertiary purposes of
> using a PC, and their outlook in this matter.  Then when the time is right
> (or they gave the schedule), everything that comes out of my mouth has been
> catered to them.
>

Totally different from the mimicked UI we were discussing a few paragraphs
back. But I agree on you on this part. That's what I do to clients as well.
But I make sure I let them know it's Linux, Ubuntu, whatever, and I keep the
UI as it is. But that's me. :).

> :: It isn't perfect, and it is harder in office evironments.  But I have
> better success in that method than presenting GNU/Linux and Ubuntu "as-is".
> It is far from being a deception.  We want to present GNU/Linux as a product
> "for them, not for geeks".
>

Ubuntu is already usable as it is. Why change the UI to look like Windows?

>  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.
>
> :: Well, Mac users are better than Windows users, they always have been.
>

In what way were Mac users better than Windows users?

>   Mac and GNU/Linux have the lowest share vs. Windows.  So our side
> obviously can learn Windows much easier because our thinking has been molded
> different already.  Windows users are not, as you have said, "spoon fed".
> And to add to that, Microsoft has a strong marketing department.
>

Actually we have _unlearned_ Windows easily because we took a chance at
trying another OS. Whether we want to admit or not, most users have used
Windows since they starting using the computer. Fortunately, I'm a DOS
person when I first started with the PC.

>
>  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.
>
> :: If the name isn't "Windows" (or "Mac") then it is a different operating
> system, there's no other way to be clearer than that.  ^_^
>

>
>>  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.
>
> :: No, I wasn't referring to dropping Linux, it won't run without it.  And
> if you meant "name", they never used "Ubuntu Linux", not that I remember.
> Regardless, that's what I was talking about.  They're looking at the product
> to become a "household name".  Instead of "Linux", it will be "Ubuntu".  It
> is still Linux underneath, but the non-geeks know it by "Ubuntu".
>

Mac is Unix underneath. But do people refer to it as Unix? I think this is
semantics :)

:: For us, we care so much about correctness of terminologies, like
> "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux".  To the non-geeks, they do not care and never
> will.  What they want is a working operating system that they has a very low
> (re)-learning process - in other words, they can use with minimal
> supervision and QnA's.
>
> :: It's like this: "why fix when it is not broken?"  For them, "why migrate
> to Linux (or GNU/Linux) if I already have Windows?"  We can't just sell them
> "no viruses" if the individual or entity (office environment) have a system
> in place that keeps viruses out ¾'s of the time.  We can't just sell them
> "it is faster than Windows" if the individual or their ITC department made
> enhancements to it.  If we want to sell the idea to them, then we need to
> cater the product to them.  If we want them to migrate, then we need to give
> them compelling reasons to switch.
>

And compelling is using a UI that mimicks Windows?

Anyway, going back to the original reason why this thread exists. I don't
think it will matter much if Ubuntu goes the Unity route. if people wanna
use it, I don't think it's that hard to learn how use Unity. And people will
try Ubuntu not because it uses Unity as a GUI, or GNOME, or whatever.

Regards!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
"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/d82d03b4/attachment.html>