Unity ROCKS!!!

[Liam Proven]

On 2 May 2011 05:32, rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:
> Hello Liam,
>
> Sunday, May 1, 2011, 11:36:39 AM, Liam wrote:
>
> LP> the advertising of Windows 7 has successfully spun it as an
> LP> incremental improvement, even though to experienced users (like
> LP> me) many of the changes are steps backwards.
>
> I'd agree with that. I don't like the trend to hide more and more
> functionality - in Win or Linux.

I think that is the wrong way to think of it. I don't like it either,
but it's not hiding - it is *simplifying*. I am a DOS user from the
1980s - Windows was a novelty to me. Before I used DOS, I used CP/M,
and before that VAX/VMS.

DOS was a novelty once and it took me a while to adjust to
subdirectories, which I'd not really used before. But DOS was simpler
than VMS.

Before CP/M, I had a Sinclair Spectrum, which was simpler still - but
with the power of newer machines, something more capable than a BASIC
interpreter in ROM was needed.

I've had to do a lot of relearning.

But now, the computer market is expanding more. Most users just want
to surf the 'Net, enjoy media and games. They don't want to know about
"applications" and "menus" and "windows" and "pointers" and "toolbars"
and all that weird computery nonsense. They just want a smart device
that adapts to them and is as easy to use as a TV set or telephone.

So operating systems must adapt. Menus and switching programs and
managing windows and reading lots of little text boxes are daunting.
So modern computer interfaces are removing that, simplifying it,
replacing 1980s and 1990s concepts with simpler ones that achieve the
same goals with fewer clicks.

The people behind Unity are working hard to keep the interface capable
for power users - so, it has lots of hotkeys and "power-user"
functionality that is accessible with keyboard shortcuts.

It's not very customisable, no. You can't fill it with little monitor
applets, googley eyes and animated fish like you could before. Sorry
about that, but really, it's not a huge loss. It's also quite new and
some of this stuff will probably reappear.

> LP> Unity is a big change - I think if it had been possible to do it
> LP> more gradually, that would have been preferable.
>
> I think if there was a good, exceedingly clear explanation of the
> benefits, so that everyone could easily see the 'advantages', it might
> not cause so much apparent resistance. As the 'Explain to me again why
> Unity is so great' thread suggests, most of us just want to know
> exactly why it is so good - something that has STILL not been
> explained in any clear way. Instead, we get mumbo jumbo like 'visual
> assets' and users 'need to develop a better physical relationship'
> with Ubuntu.

This is all just as far as I can see and tell, you understand. I am
nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu - I am just a user.

But this being the case, from where I sit, I'd say: you're asking the
wrong questions.

Unity is designed to be simpler and easier for new users.

It is /not/ designed to be a better interface than GNOME 2 for GNOME 2 users.

If you want a list of improvements, well, sorry, there isn't one. In
what ways are bananas improved over bicycles? They aren't. They're
just different things. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Ubuntu is a small minority OS. Its target is people coming from other
OSs, *not* people coming from older versions of Ubuntu. There are a
billion-odd Windows users out there and only a dozen or 2 million
existing Ubuntu users.

Unity is meant to be a simpler, friendlier, more colourful and
attractive interface than Windows, and as a sideline, a cheaper "poor
man's Mac OS X," if you like.

KDE is, to my mind, a poor attempt to copy Windows - it just apes a
lot of the basic controls and features and adds a metric ton of
customisation and clutter. I want my file manager to manage files, not
to be a Web browser and email client and media playback tool and image
sorter and network-connectivity client and 38,534 other functions.

GNOME 2 was a slightly-more-Mac-inspired take on the Windows 95
interface: /two/ horizontal taskbars rather than one (which I never
really understood, myself), but the same basic structure as the
Microsoft Explorer GUI: hierarchical menus, buttons, quick-launch
icons, a tray with a clock, and so on.

It did not innovate much over MS and as such if MS wished to sue for
plagiarism, it had an excellent case.

Apple went and did something different, with a blend of classic MacOS
and NeXTstep/OPENstep. People have taken to it very well. It's not
very customisable, but it's good, efficient, simple and clean. It
works.

So that is what Ubuntu is doing: a simple, clean,
not-very-customisable desktop with influences drawn from Mac OS X,
iOS, Android and some of the existing Windows-like controls and
methods.

It's not meant to convert existing users. It's meant to bring new
people to Ubuntu by making it simple and accessible and
easily-learned. Remember it came from netbooks, simple internet-access
devices rather than full-function PCs.

Don't bother asking in what ways it improves on GNOME 2. Instead, ask
if it's a good interface *in itself.*


-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508