My request to ubuntu developer team

[Liam Proven]

On 20 November 2011 23:49, Ernest Doub <hideserted at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Amedee Van Gasse <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, November 19, 2011 23:40, Pongo A. Pan wrote:
>>
>> > 5. Michael Jackson and gnome 2 are still dead, and pretty soon the
>> > traditional desktop computer will be too for most users.  Get over it.
>
> BZZT!  Wrong...  The "traditional desktop" is a major production tool for businesses.

[Citation needed]

> This multi-mega-billion dollar investment isn't going to be replaced by any handheld device in less than a decade given the most optimistic projection of technology adoption.

Who said anything about handhelds?

>  This would require an increase in device capabilities at a rate some multiple of the fastest rate seen since the introduction of the silicon transistor.

[Citation needed]

> As far as the traditional desktop being dead, I will use the analogy of motor vehicle controls as a parallel to the GUI front end used to control the underlying computer hardware and software.
> There are 3 basic control schemes for self propelled motor vehicles.  Each has its preferred applications and there is very little cross platform use yet all accomplish the same basic function of controlling the functions of a self propelled vehicle.
> The 3 systems are the automotive, the motorcycle, and the track laying vehicle.  All 3 basic systems have been in use for well over 100 years.  All 3 systems were developed within 10 to 20 years of the introduction of self propelled vehicles and were standardized by the time the self propelled vehicle was in common usage, having supplanted other control schemes.
> Sometimes the collective mind gets it right very early in a products development.  The Unity desktop model is not as productive as the model that the Gnome 2 desktop is based on.

Objection. Personal opinion being stated as if it were fact.

IOW: BZZZT! Wrong!


>  Business decision makers aren't interested in how shiny the new toys are they are interested in how much work per unit of time they will produce and what it is going to cost in terms of training and acquisition costs.  Over the long haul productivity wins over shiny.

Business decision makers aren't interested in Linux as a desktop OS,
by and large. So what has this unsubstantiated claim got to do with
anything?

> If you don't believe me, go ask those people who have spent their entire career studying how to increase productivity and ask them for their opinion of which system is better.

Hi there! I am such a person. 24y in the business and counting, from
SOHO environments to multinationals.

In my considered expert opinion, Unity is as "productive" as GNOME 2,
if not more so.

Secondly, in your stealth Windows advocacy here - and that is what
you're doing, whether you know it or not; you're boosting the Win95
desktop, which is what GNOME is a copy of - then you are missing 2
vital points.

[1] Microsoft itself is abandoning its own desktop, starting with the
next version of Windows. It's a subsidiary only in Win8 and may well
disappear from Win9 or other future versions.

[2] The Microsoft environment is patented up the wazoo. The taskbar:
patented. System tray: patented. Quick launch icons: patented. Start
menu: patented.

Some 235 of them, in fact.

So GNOME and Ubuntu /had/ to change to avoid potential prosecution.
Canonical and Ubuntu do not have agreements with Microsoft as (for
instance) SUSE does.

> If the Gnome 2 software is getting old and creaky then it is time to re-engineer the interface using the current state of the art of software development to take advantage of advances in hardware, similar to building automotive controls with newer and better materials.

Yup. Been done. Go try it. I did. I don't like it much.

> Lets have this discussion about 5 years from now.  By then it will be possible to discern whether the tablet is supplanting the desktop or whether it is an accessory allowing the desktop environment to extend into other areas.

Not much point. The decision has been taken, years ago. GNOME 2 is
dead. Accept it, deal with it, move on. It's gone. It's history.

Canonical had 3 choices:
[a] abandon GNOME completely
[b] go with GNOME 3 and GNOME Shell
[c] write its own desktop based on GNOME code, apps, accessories and
file manager

It decided path 3 was the best.

If you don't agree, let's see you pony up US$10 million a year to pay
for it all. That's what Mark Shuttleworth is doing, and I think he and
his people are doing a very good job.

I also reckon people should stop complaining about it and be a bit
more grateful for what they're getting for free.

--
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