Hacker News Reader

Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data, and completely antithetical to the kinds of philosophies that undergird Linux and Ubuntu.

But really, the core of the issue that's been raised by Unity is that Ubuntu seems to be moving away from catering to power users to cutting features essential to them in favor of appealing to more amateur users. One can lament that decision, and even disagree with it, but I don't know how fair I think it is to criticize Unity for lacking those kind of power user features.

After all, it isn't like power users are exactly wanting when it comes to replacement options in the Linux space.

View on HN

Unity also simply regresses on many UI issues, relevant not only to power users:

* When a maximized window is behind an active non-maximized window, the panel serves as its title bar. But it actually spells out the name of the active window. Very confusing.

* Additionally, in the same situation, all of they standard mouse gestures on the panel (e.g: double-click to unmaximize) do not work. Maximized windows don't get the right-click-title gesture to work at all.

* No window list at a glance (useful for remembering your context/state with the UI)

* Hides important buttons such as close window, as well as the menus, where non-power-users will not know to look.

* Panel unhide takes a relatively long time -- slowing down almost every interaction with the UI.

* Workspace switcher does not support window drag, unlike the gnome panel workspace applets.

* Workspace switcher requires multiple selections to switch to a window.

* Alt-tab switches applications, not windows, which is more confusing, as it associates unrelated windows together, as if the mere fact they're implemented by a certain application necessarily means they relate. This also requires more keystrokes to reach the window you want -- when you don't have many of them in a workspace, which is a typical situation for organized users that actually use workspaces.

I could go on and on. Unity is an immature, alpha-quality piece of work that seems to have been thrown out because of a deadline.

Many of these traits are shared with OS X. It's a different mindset, and I'm sure Canonical has done plenty of research on usability. From what I've seen most people who arent savvy computer users happen to like it.

Please do not slander OS X like that. I've been a happy OS X user since 2005. I look at GNOME 3/Unity and I vomit. Vigorously.

If this was an attempt to be Mac-like, then it was pure cargo-cult UI design. They clearly have no understanding of the actual design process.

The last Linux desktop environment I was reasonably happy with was KDE 2.x. I tolerated 3.x.

Please, a bit less hyperbole and more constructive criticism.

Fine:

> When a maximized window is behind an active non-maximized window, the panel serves as its title bar. But it actually spells out the name of the active window. Very confusing.

This just doesn't happen in OS X that I've ever observed. It's in fundamental conflict with the OS X window management paradigm.

> Additionally, in the same situation, all of they standard mouse gestures on the panel (e.g: double-click to unmaximize) do not work. Maximized windows don't get the right-click-title gesture to work at all.

Again, this is just inapplicable to OS X.

> No window list at a glance (useful for remembering your context/state with the UI)

This is true for OS X, as far as it goes, but OS X UI practices seem to make it less of an issue than it would be on Windows or a typical Linux desktop environment.

> Hides important buttons such as close window, as well as the menus, where non-power-users will not know to look.

I'm not even sure what this one is about. It seems inapplicable to both Unity and OS X.

> Panel unhide takes a relatively long time -- slowing down almost every interaction with the UI.

Hiding off by default in OS X, quite fast to unhide.

> Workspace switcher does not support window drag, unlike the gnome panel workspace applets.

OS X supports this fully.

> Workspace switcher requires multiple selections to switch to a window.

Not true of OS X.

> Alt-tab switches applications, not windows

True of OS X.

8 properties total, 1 I can't make sense of, 2 that are more or less shared. If my post was hyperbole, the one I responded to claiming "many" of these were shared with OS X was, too.

> I'm sure Canonical has done plenty of research on usability.

Any links? I've found a few results from months ago, but results/feedback there weren't so positive.

http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-uni... http://lwn.net/Articles/438678/

> (e.g: double-click to unmaximize)

Just a minor note, I just upgraded to 11.10 today. This seems to work correctly now.

For those that don't like it, the alt+tab behavior can be changed back to the traditional style in the CompizConfig Settings Manager. Try using the static workspace switcher.

I actually don't mind the alt+tab behaviour, although I do find it takes too long to open the sub-menu when I pause on a group.

> I could go on and on. Unity is an immature, alpha-quality piece of work that seems to have been thrown out because of a deadline.

Usually in open source, real user feedback is better than guessing.

I think Unity is maturing and will grow to be what really draws new users to Ubuntu.

Keep in mind what has already been said, Ubuntu is not really geared towards power users (plenty other distros for that), its early motto was "Linux for human beings", and also bug #1 is "Microsoft has majority share on desktop".

I'm pretty much enjoying this new direction and it's not keeping me from doing anything I need to, be it programming or browsing.

Since it's new, I also understand that there will be lots of set backs if I want go around tweaking everything, but that will stabilize with time and I'm sure that Canonical will appreciate any feedback from users that do want to experiment.

Also, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to realease something new that will entirely support every other tweak and customization made with the old features.

Usually in open source, real user feedback is better than guessing.

Certainly. But that doesn't mean it is a good idea to push unfinished stuff as default. Though maybe that is the only way to get people who aren't technology enthusiasts to try the new thing and provide feedback.

I noticed the window issues when Unity was first introduced as many a Popup window would grab focus but the title bar controls were still for the underlying active window! What witchcraft is this!

Regarding the new alt-tab behavior: check out alt-tilde. I love the combination of the two!

It has a few bugs (e.g. try opening two terminals, then alt-tabbing... it doesn't switch applications), but it's definitely a step in the right direction IMO.

The problem is, Unity has done nothing but alienate power users. This is a huge problem for Ubuntu. The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold. Its not like Ubuntu has a big marketing budget or a Steve Jobs type evangelist.

I do agree the binary blob is a terrible idea, but I've found the new interface to be fairly positive for new users. My brother who hasn't considered ubuntu for years, installed after seeing the new interface. It appeals to the mac crowd with the whole dock interface. The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. Having a simple and dumb interface can be a good thing for new users.

> * The power users should know enough about ubuntu to change what they don't like. *

Except configuration is being hidden in binary blobs! And "The Ubuntu Way" seems to be being forced on "power users".

It's a great shame. Linux does need an easy to use OS, and Ubuntu has filled that role for a while now, and will continue to do so. But the great thing about Ubuntu was that power users could use it as well. Now some people are going to migrate to other distributions (debian for power users, mint for people who dislike the idea of an "easy to use, linux for newbies").

> The gurus are the gateway to getting new users into the fold.

If that was really the case then Linux would be everywhere in the desktop by now.

This doesn't make any sense at all. The question at stake is "how does Ubuntu get the new users that it does?"

Try the same line of argument in a different context: "Our television ad campaign is responsible for almost the entirety of our increase in market share."

"Impossible! If that were true, we would have 100% market share!"

>The problem is, Unity has done nothing but alienate power users.

Ubuntu has almost always acted as a stepping stone for people to come learn Linux and then graduate to a real distribution. There have always been reason for power users to be put off, even back when Ubuntu was just an ancient african word meaning "I can't configure Debian". Are you saying that by putting those issues in the GUI it alienates them too soon?

But aren’t the core users the most important?

Shouldn’t Gnome 3 instead have been a spin-off or separate project from traditional Gnome?

No. There's just not enough resources (developers, designers, testers, etc) to do that.

The Gnome project just decided that it was time to try and make a desktop that wasn't based on the Windows 95 (and up) desktop metaphor, and the only way that was going to work was to commit completely to that goal.

Is see the freedom of choice as one of the core benefits of Open Software. But losing power users to other distributions is bad for software that depends on user contribution and support. If the people that contribute most of the knowledge to discussions on forums and IRC channels switch to other distributions live isn't getting better for the amateur-user, it is getting worse.

If user contributions are part of your business model you should also try to appeal to those users that are capable of delivering contributions.

The only really valid criticism I see here is the binary blob problem-- clearly this is a poor way to store user configuration data

I disagree. Enlightenment has been doing this from the start because it is faster to read and write than a specially formatted ASCII file and because the user is expected to do all configuration through the graphical interface.

antithetical to the kinds of philosophies that undergird Linux

This somewhat true but I believe editing text files by hand is the type of thing Ubuntu is trying to move away from.

ESR is an old hat who has been using Linux since way back in the day and is set in his ways. I am too, but he should know Ubuntu isn't for him. They are focused on ease of use for new users, not accommodating all the idiosyncrasies of the old ones.

I've got plenty of text files I don't regularly edit by hand. However, when the time comes:

- I've got a multitude of tools to choose from to evaluate and modify the files (editors, search tools, scripted modification, etc.).

- I can see with my own eyes what the contents of the file are, and generally, what is wrong. GNOME went the wrong way on this a long time ago by allowing non-intelligible values within gconf, a'la Microsoft's Registry.

- I can make atomic edits and deletes to/from the file (add/remove a line). I can carry those atomic edits around with me (configuration bag of tricks).

- I CAN COMMENT THE MOTHERLOVIN FILE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FUCK I PUT (OR REMOVED) A SPECIFIC VALUE. Configuration files are NOT there for the convenience of the computer / interpreter / system they are managing, they are there for the administrators to understand what is configured and why.

Removing the ability to comment files, or to make atomic updates in a commented system (e.g: git) removes a core value of configuration management.

Yes, GNOME jumped the shark, but it happened years and years ago.

Add to this: I can put it under version control, back it up meaningfully, and find out what a GUI control actually changed and revert it cleanly.

    gsetttings list-recursively > gsettings-all.txt

The reverse action is left as an exercise to the reader. Or wait..

   for line in $(cat gsettings-all.txt); do gsettings set $line; done

PS. Ubuntu can be blamed for Unity, which is just another shell (maybe not the last) but that settings stuff is way beyond their influence.

Hey, I'm still using an old version of GNOME; would you be willing to post the output of

    gsettings list-recursively | wc
    gsettings list-recursively | gzip -9c | wc -c

to help us understand the issues?

   $ gsettings list-recursively | wc
   1037 3367 56466

   $ gsettings list-recursively | gzip -9c | wc -c
   11700

Here. What is the issue you are trying to understand?

   $ gsettings list-schemas | wc -l
   211

I guess we can assume a schema == a config file

Thank you very much.

The issue I'm trying to understand is exactly how the fuck it is so fucking slow to parse 56 fucking kilobytes of text at session login time that it justifies encrypting my fucking desktop settings in a fucking binary configuration file.

I thought maybe the default configuration had ten megabytes of shit in it or something, which could conceivably sort of explain it, although then that would be another fucking stupid decision that would require explanation. But 56 fucking kilobytes? Which gzip suggests would be 35 kilobytes with a human-oriented syntax?

Give me a fucking break.

The issue is not as much parsing as reading from a lot of different files.

As someone else has put it in other thread sequential reading is fast. Random reading from 50+ files which involves seeking the disk is not.

Of course the gconf configuration may have had other alternatively smart ways of doing things and gsettings authors are just optimizing where it is easy to do.

And by the way the gconf stuff is still necessary

   sudo apt-get remove gconf2

shows the a whole lot of packages which still depend on it, so when the transition will be complete there will be more than "56 fucking kilobytes of text"

Sticking all the stuff you need to read at login time into one file is at least plausibly reasonable (although! ldd /usr/bin/gnome-terminal | wc alone still gives me 52 libraries, so config files are not close to the only problem here!) but turning that one file into an opaque binary file is not.

> it is faster to read and write than a specially formatted ASCII file

How many milliseconds does it take to parse YAML, XML, or any other file format for which a parser written in C is widely available?

> the user is expected to do all configuration through the graphical interface.

Changing configurations using the GUI is exactly what Unity and GNOME 3 don't allow the user to do. Try changing anything other than the desktop background.

> How many milliseconds does it take to parse YAML, XML, or any other file format for which a parser written in C is widely available?

YAML and XML may be slower than this, but Python 2.6's built-in 'json' module averages less than 20 milliseconds to parse a simple 1000-element "object"/dict on my system.

This isn't even the highest-performance JSON parser for Python, and parsing into less dynamic C or C++ datastructures would probably be somewhat faster still.

JSON is a great data interchange format but I would veto it as an option for configuration files since it doesn't permit comments.

Actually it does, you just have to tilt your head right. :) See [1].

Either way, the principle stands. If a desktop environment wanted to standardize on JSON + C/C++-style comments, they could extend their standard parser easily enough without meaningful performance impact.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/244777/can-i-comment-a-js...

Even so... Doing yet-another-incompatible-binary-format?

There are a number of standardized binary formats that support all sorts of data configurations. Hell, use sqlite for all I care, but at least use a format that can easily be examined and manipulated manually when the UI inevitably breaks it.

How frequently should the conf file be read or written to? If it's once at the start of the session, then that time savings is meaningless.

It's read on login and on every app startup. That, IMO, makes it not meaningless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com