My request to ubuntu developer team

[Ernest Doub]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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]
>

Go the latest shareholders reports for Microsoft.  After you finish with
that read Apples [if your head hasn't already exploded from minutia
overload]

>
> > 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?
>
Handhelds; defined as any non laptop class device capable of communicating
via the internet that is battery powered and does not require either a
wired power connection or data  connection.
Term used as a generic descriptor not a designator for a specific device.

>
> >  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]
>

You are being argumentative for the sake of pedantry and not to move the
discussion forward.
Show me ~any~ handheld device [using the above definition] currently in
distribution that has the same speed and productivity capabilities as the
desktop models currently in distribution.  You might be able to make a case
[it would still be a major stretch] if you chose an absolute bottom end
desktop box and the most bleeding edge handheld but not if you are
comparing averages.
The desktop will have the advantage in productivity until there is a major
technological breakthrough requiring at least an order of magnitude
reduction in "real estate" required for a given level of computing power.

>
> > 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.
>

Fact = documented historical events.

>
> 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?
>

You are very good at taking a statement of fact and turning it into some
sort of assertion in your own mind.  The unwillingness to accept what are
commonly accepted policies as a fact of life is your personal cross to bear.
Business decision makers will never be interested in Linux as a desktop OS
as long as the developers refuse to provide the productivity tools required
by business in a package that is economically implementable.
The only reason that MS has such a large market share is because they meet
the checklist of business requirements better than anybody else in the view
of the people who are writing the checks.

>
> > 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.
>

So you have accreditation in Industrial Engineering as well as your
expertise in Computers?
When did you do your last time and motion study?
How much of that 24 years experience is in dealing with the human/machine
interface?

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

In some respects it is an improvement.  My objection, and it is the same
one voiced by many others is the step backwards that has been taken and the
stubborn refusal on the part of Unity advocates to admit that some of the
"features" are not properly implemented
My first objection is to the use of the left side of the screen for any
purpose where the workspace is obscured for any reason.
It might be OK for graphical applications where the center of the screen is
the focus but not for most other applications.
We live in a left justified world.  If you were designing a system to be
used primarily with Hebraic, which is right right justified and reads to
the left it would be acceptable.
These functions need to be movable by the user if you are going to achieve
wide acceptance. If Microsoft is moving in this direction they will be
making a huge mistake and will find the same objections being voiced as are
being expressed with respect to Unity.
Any time you are covering a persons workspace and breaking the flow of
their work there is a slowdown in productivity.  This is most noticeable
when doing repetitive tasks.  The mental break caused  when doing non
repetitive tasks can be even longer and more disruptive to the task.  By
allowing the user to determine where is the most appropriate place for
something to hide when not in active use this allows the individual to put
those items most frequently used where they are the most accessible and
create the least interference with th flow of work.

>
> 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.
>

th as been used so long and has become so widely accepted because it is an
efficient use of the workspace [monitor] and tools [keyboard and mouse]

>
> [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.
>

Any competent patent attorney will tell you that just because you have been
issued a patent on something doesn't mean it will withstand a legal
challenge.  It has been stated elsewhere on this list that Microsoft
refuses to disclose most of their patents.  They are using the implied
threat of financially ruinous legal action to aggressively control a
marketplace and ideas that they do not legitimately own.  This is the way
that business monopolies work until the time when they are broken up by
court order.
There has been well publicized legal action against Microsoft in the EU
that has resulted in a significant change in their business practices in
that marketplace.  The same sort of action is possible elsewhere, as is a
change in patent law that could make their claims irrelevant.

>
> 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.
>

If you will recall, I made this very argument when Unity was first launched
with respect to the capital investment.  I also voiced my concerns about it
being a path that leads to a dead end unless some significant modifications
are made to the implementation very quickly.
Every time someone brings up a concern about the way Unity is implemented
there is an immediate response of "get  over it".  This is neither rational
nor productive after the second chorus.
There are a number of people who have made the investment of time and
thoughtfulness to specify areas where Unity needs improvement or
modification in order for it to achieve wider acceptance.  Eventually these
people will tire of the non responsiveness and move on.  What you seem to
be incapable of realizing is that for every one of those who have
articulated a flaw there are a hundred [maybe many more] who won't say a
word and just move on, mentally filing Ubuntu [and Canonical] to the
dustbin of obsolete and unusable products.

>
> 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
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>



-- 

“If I had a dollar for every time that capitalism was blamed for the
problems caused by government, I’d be a fat filmmaker with a baseball
cap.”  - from a Facebook viral video
<http://linuxcounter.net/cert/544489.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20111121/d46cc2af/attachment.html>