A task-centric desktop...

[Liam Proven]

On 21 November 2011 14:24, W. Scott Lockwood III <vladinator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>----Original Message-----
>>From: ubuntu-users-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> [mailto:ubuntu-users-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Liam Proven
>>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:57 AM
>>To: Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions
>>Subject: Re: A task-centric desktop...
>>
>>>On 21 November 2011 12:58, vladinator at gmail.com <vladinator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Paying attention to, and not being dismissive of, the needs and
>>> feedback of the community is the most important part of _any_ Distro.
>>> You either get that, or you quickly plummet from your position of
>>> prominence. Which is exactly what we are now seeing.
>
>>Please *top* quote on the list.
>
> When replying from my phone, I don't have a choice. When I do have a choice,
> I will quote as I like.

Then you're violating the rules of the mailing list.

>>I don't think Ubuntu /is/ being unresponsive.
>
> And I disagree.
>
>>Firstly, I think a lot of people are happily using Unity and not
> complaining. It's the ones who are whinging who are shouting and
>>being noticeable. Those using it are not shouting about it.
>
> Have you signed the Ubuntu code of conduct? Judging from the fact that you
> are accusing others of "whinging" and "shouting" I'm guessing not.

[Shrug] I don't remember.


>> Secondly, and this is the thing EVERYONE seems to be missing:
>> UBUNTU *HAD* TO CHANGE THE DESKTOP.
>> It had NO CHOICE.
>
> False. Or, at best, citation needed.

http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2100-7344_3-6160604.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041780/microsoft-threatens-linux

& indeed:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1017183/linux-innovation-missing


> Furthermore, there is plenty of
> evidence that things are changing direction toward competing in the embedded
> market, and that as of 12.04 they will once again start paying attention to
> the needs of their 'power users'. Sorry, I'm not waiting that long.

Unity is, ahem, "inspired by" Mac OS X. Mac OS X is /not/ a tablet or
phone interface.

The whole Unity-is-for-tablets thing is a red herring.

>> Firstly, GNOME 2 is dead. Gone. Fuggedaboutdit. It is no more. It has
> ceased to be. That is nothing to do with Ubuntu or Canonical;
>> blame the GNOME Project.
>
> That software progressed from version 2 to version 3 is not, in and of
> itself, an indication of the death of a product. I had no issue with the
> transition from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 for example. So, I don't see this as
> even remotely relevant.

Go on then - how are you finding using Firefox 2 today?

Software needs to be updated, to be current, to survive.

Secondly, Canonical attempted to get involved in GNOME 3 development.
It was spurned. So it went its own way and, IMHO, developed something
better.

>> So Ubuntu /had/ to change to a new desktop.
>
> False.

No. Demonstrably and unarguably not false. GNOME 3 *is* a new desktop.
It had to migrate off GNOME 2 as it was not being supported any more.

> They chose to do so in order to start competing in the embedded
> market - things like tablets and phones.

How do you know? Citations, please.

> They pissed off a LOT of people by
> doing so, as the mass migration (that you seem to be pretending isn't
> happening) to things like MINT shows.

Too soon to tell, really. As I have repeatedly said, if the move
attracts 10x more new users than the annoyed old users who leave,
overall, that would be a huge success. Early reports I am hearing,
including on the Ubuntu lists, are that new users like Unity.

>> Secondly, *why* did GNOME die?
>
> GNOME didn't die. They released a new version of their desktop.

GNOME *2* died.

>>Well, in part, because Microsoft is threatening it.
>
> Yes, of course they are. They want people to use Windows.

"Why" is not germane. It's true, yes, but the company's reasons don't matter.

>>You may not realise how much GNOME steals from the Microsoft Windows
> desktop - as does KDE, as does Xfce, as does LXDE - but it is a /lot./
>
> There is very little there that they in turn didn't steal from Apple and
> Xerox.

/Au contraire./

> You don't know very much about the history of GUI's do you?

Look, I do not want to get personal and /ad hominem,/ but actually, in
this instance, I think I know a /lot/ more about it than you do,
judging from these comments.

Indeed every single one of the half a dozen people who have picked
this argument with me have lost. I did not previously consider myself
one, but I am coming to realise that actually I am an expert in
historical desktop and GUI design, whereas most people who are arguing
about it only know a handful of anecdotes and have no clue about the
actual detailed design points under discussion here.

Quick starter question: without checking or googling or any reference,
name the sole 2 prior art attestations for the Windows 95 taskbar
design and the bases for Microsoft's product being significantly
different. There are only 2 that I or anybody have been able to find.
Both are obscure. Name the product, the version, the company and
ideally the approximate year of release.

This is, in this context, a really easy, beginners' question.

> That
> surprises me, because based on your LinkedIn profile, I'd guess that you're
> only about 3 years older than I am.

Uhuh. And?

>> Compared to the non-Windows-influenced desktops (like ROX Desktop or
> GNUstep, which you may never have seen because no distro uses them by
> default),
>
> Please don't make assumptions about what I have and haven't seen. I've been
> at this a very long time. I remember when I (wrongly) thought that Linux was
> the shiny new toy that people would play with, but that real work would
> still happen on *BSD. :-)

Yes, I've been tracking it since it first appeared, too. Mind you, my
money was on BeOS for a while, and OS/2 before that. Shows how wrong
you can be!

>> *anything* with a taskbar and a hierarchical launch menu is a *direct
> ripoff* of Windows and all that design is patented.

> Which they in turn stole from others.

Not a hierarchical *app launcher* menu in the corner of the desktop,
anchored in a panel, summoned from a single left-click, and this is
the kind of detail that patents hinge upon.

The Start Menu™ is not the same as the Apple Menu on classic MacOS,
for instance.

> Patents can (and should in this case)
> be invalidated.

I personally would really *welcome* evidence and citations that could
invalidate these unknown patents, although without the patents being
identified, I cannot see how.

> There is a dearth of prior art out there to show that they
> should never have been granted such a patent in the first place.

I do not follow this statement. "A dearth" means a very small amount
of, an insufficiency, which would appear to be the opposite of what
you are arguing.

> B&N is
> fighting them right now on that, for example.

Indeed, and good for them. As a non-American, that's academic to me -
Barnes & Noble do not operate over here and I have never seen their
e-reader products.

> Not that that has anything at all to do with my point.
>
> There is nothing there that requires Canonical/Ubuntu to so publicly
> disregard the wishes of the user base.

The fact that the desktop that they used, that the users knew, has
been discontinued, is reason enough.

>> Microsoft has patents over the Windows desktop design and GNOME & KDE
> infringes some 235 of those patents.
>
> So Mickysoft says. Can you name those patents? Have you done _any_ research
> on this yourself, or are you just parroting things you've read on Slashdot?

No, it is not disclosing what patents, nor even the exact numbers.
However, I can point to dozens of features in GNOME and the other
desktops I cite which are direct rip-offs from the Windows 95 design.
Furthermore, I can discuss why these were original features, how the
prior art is not relevant and does not invalid these patents.

I daresay that with some time and effort I could come up with a list
of 235 direct infringements, yes. If you can come up with someone
prepared to pay me to do so, I will be happy to.


>> So the smart Linux vendors have 2 choices:
>
> False.
>
>> [1] Sign a pact with Microsoft to share software patents and not get sued
> - e.g. SUSE, Xandros
>> [2] Or don't sign and change to a non-Windows-like desktop, ASAP - e.g.
> Ubuntu, Fedora
>
> [3] Fight.

Uhuh. And how, exactly? Who is going to pay? Mark Shuttleworth is
"only" worth about half a billion.

Mainly, though, it's a losing game from the start - the FOSS desktops
/do/ demonstrably infringe.


>> It was not a matter of choice.
>
> Everything is a choice. What you're talking about has absolutely no bearing
> on the switch to Unity. That was another choice entirely - one to pursue the
> embedded market.

Citations, please.

>> It was not a matter of listening to users or not. It is a matter of trying
> to get out of a software patent trap PDQ.
>
> False, I'm going to say, but to be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't be
> adverse to patent traps. I'm saying false because it was a matter of going
> after money and not giving a damn what anyone else thought. Patents are an
> afterthought at best.

Citations, please. I can back up my statements; can you?

>> GNOME 3 does something different, unlike anything else. I don't like it
> much myself but it works. I can use it if I must.
>
> This is the first think you've said that has made any logical sense.

How many references do you want, and if you want original research,
referenced, how much are you willing to pay me to do it?

>> Unity is more pleasant by far,
>
> An opinion that many more than you seem to think don't share.

[*Shrug*] It's personal preference. What I /am/ seeing is a remarkable
number of people who really can't handle anything except the one basic
interface that they know, that has been implemented across multiple
different OSs. I think that if someone came to desktop GUIs after
1995, it is entirely possible that the Windows-style interface is /all
they have ever known/ and on that basis I'm not surprised that a
change is a wrench.

OTOH, I think in the case of Ubuntu, it's people being reactionary. If
someone can adapt to GNOME Shell, then they could certainly adapt to
Unity - Unity is more GNOME 2-like than GNOME Shell is.

Tens of millions of happy "switchers" to Apple and Mac OS X show that
people /can/ happily learn to use the OS X interface, so it's not that
it's inaccessible or impenetrable - it's just that people don't like
being /made/ to change. That's fair enough, really. It does not
justify all the abuse, though.

>> but it achieves that by being very like Mac OS X, from another litigious
> company with lots of patents: Apple.
>
> Then why did they do it? Oh right - because patents had _nothing_ to do with
> the decision. Going after tablets and phones as a market did.

Citation. Merely repeating yourself is not going to convince anyone.

>> I am not sure that is the best plan, but for now, I like the result.
>
> I support your right to use Unity as a window manager. I also support my
> right to vote with my feet for exactly the reasons I gave.

Of course. That's absolutely fine.

>> But the Linux companies are backed into a corner,
>
> No, they are not. This is again, false. There are a LOT of choices, and I
> wish many of them would make smarter ones - fighting Mickysoft is the only
> good option in my opinion.

That is true, but it is also absolutely absurd.

For a privately-funded US$10 *million* p.a. as-yet unprofitable
company to take on a US$110 *billion* dollar company with revenues of
US$30 *billion* p.a. would be foolish. Were it to do so from a
starting position of having infringed the larger company's
intellectual property, and still officially offering and supporting
and sanctioning no less than 3 desktop environments that still
infringe the large company's IP, would be absolutely suicidal.

SUSE, for which read Novell, for which read Attachmate, is also not
exactly booming right now. But it's taken the MS shilling, so it's OK.

Red Hat is doing OK, but it makes less than 0.03% of the revenue
Microsoft does and has 1 of the assets.

So even if the 2 leading desktop distros teamed up, it wouldn't be
David fighting Goliath, it would be one of Goliath's toes rebelling.
When it was guilty of the thing it had been charged with.

>> and the options are, get into bed with Microsoft or change to a
> non-Windows-like desktop without a taskbar and without a hierarchical app
> menu.
>
> False. There is a third option - invalidate Mickysoft's patents.

We don't know exactly what the patents cover, but I will tell you
this: they are, from a considerable amount of in-depth research and my
own personal knowledge of the field since a decade before Windows 95
appeared, I think that most of them are entirely valid, very strong
and that there is /no/ prior art.

>> And note that these are the 2 characteristics shared by GNOME 3 and Unity.
>
> Here's one that isn't - the GNOME team takes feedback from the user
> community, and doesn't disregard it.

Go on then. Do tell how the user community shaped GNOME Shell. :¬)

>> There are very good reasons for this, which all the stick-in-the-mud,
> inflexible, learning-averse neophobes
>> who are whining and complaining about "productive desktops" are completely
> missing.
>
> Again, I encourage you to read the Ubuntu code of conduct, and sign it.
> You're not doing yourself any favors by calling people names who have been
> doing this for a lot longer than most.

I am not calling any particular individual names.

-- 
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