Metro and Unity Are Teenage Girls With Fluorescent Hair | Hacker News Reader

Metro and Unity Are Teenage Girls With Fluorescent Hair

jeremymorgan.com

14 pointsJeremyMorgan39 comments

There are a lot of problems with Metro and Unity, but starting your essay by ridiculing the fashion choices of non-conformist teen girls is absolutely the wrong way to frame the discussion. The essay would be much stronger without the off-target metaphor of the title and first paragraph.

There's a casual misogyny to the premise that ignores the face that plenty of teenage boys do/did the same things for the same reasons.

If you look hard enough, anything can offend you.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offende...

Not white, but thanks for dismissing my comment with a link.

What is your improved description for the remark describing girls as "not overly ugly or attractive yet still wanted to be the center of attention" besides casually misogynist? I am genuinely curious. Since when does a (seemingly) objective description of a girl's attractiveness give them the social blessing to behave a certain way? I'm not offended; I'm bored with the laziness of the analogy.

"They often had many good qualities, but they didn’t think so. These girls felt they have nothing better to offer so they went with outlandish styles to attract attention." That doesn't seem misogynistic. It seems like he's describing their own bad judgement, not his.

Because it's insinuating those girls actually feel that way and are acting out because of it, instead of assuming they're confident enough to make these decisions because they actually want to. If every girl/person you see with unconventional style is presumed to be weak because you think they're doing it for attention, that's discrimination with a hint of ego for not having to 'stoop' to those tactics.

This is similar to throwing goth kids under the bus for obviously all being from broken homes, worshiping the devil and wanting to shoot up their schools. Why do we treat people coming out of their shell and avoiding the status quo as weakness instead of strength?

"Insinuating"? You just assume, without justification, that he's making those judgements at a distance and doesn't know those people personally. You've got the argument backwards: he's not claiming that everyone with "unconventional style" has low self-esteem and is looking for attention. He's observing that attention-seeking people with low self-esteem do flashy things to get attention.

I know a goth girl (real goth not poser goth, for those who care) and she told me that she dresses defensively because she gets bullied a lot. That's not an assumption or judgement by me, that's what she told me. I also know a former Wiccan girl from a broken home, and a satanist who has anger management issues and a drug problem. That does not generalize to all goth/Wiccan/satanist people but that doesn't mean it never happens.

May do flashy things to get attention, and that's not even positive attention as evidenced by this post, so at the end of the day they must do it for themselves because it'd be easier not to do it at all. I don't know what makes someone a 'poser' and someone 'legit'; what legitimizes their existence isn't appearance, what they practice or what they've been through. It's still a blanket statement of assumptions that doesn't need to be perpetuated.

It's obviously a (weak) personal anecdote. To expect everyone's personal anecdotes to contain a gender-neutral worldview compatible with the latest revision of social progressivism is unreasonable at best.

To then accuse that person of misogyny because of it? Equally weak - basically an accusation of 'thought crime' based off an incomplete record of thoughts.

I was merely describing the analogy as misogynist, but if you wish to extend the label to the speaker you have every right to attempt that. If we are to discuss the rhetoric of my comment, though, I think that weasel words such as "thought crime" are also weak and loaded to the point of being useless in this context. Thoughts are distinct from written words. Edit: typo

The speaker obviously had personal experiences involving teenage girls when he was younger, and related it back with a personal anecdote. Calling him (or the analogy) misogynistic is incredibly loaded, and seems more a knee-jerk reaction to anything that depicts one gender negatively without simultaneously doing the same for the other than a real critique. The use of the word 'thought-crime' was quite deliberate.

Save the outrage for where it actually matters - there is plenty of real misogyny out there. Just today I read a story about some idiot candidate for Senate in Indiana...

The use of the term "thought crime" may have been deliberate, but that does not make it apt. I was in no way claiming to know what the author believes or thinks, only what their words have to offer--which I was summarily disappointed with. I'm sorry if my comment "seemed" to be carrying "loaded" or "knee-jerk" terminology, but after a long period of reading the same anti-woman dreck over and over in tech-related blogs one feels responsible to point it out on occasion.

To suggest that the existence of more extreme cases of misogyny supersede the need to make note of lesser cases is a weak and breathless deflection. The idea that any criticism is "outrage" may make you feel justified in your sensitivities, but doesn't take away from my initial assertion. As I attempted to say elsewhere my problem is not that the analogy fails to be gender neutral, but that it is boring.

No, but cases of actual misogyny do supersede the need to make note of potential maybe misogyny due to omission during a personal anecdote. In other words, don't cry wolf.

I am supportive of the cause and I'm getting annoyed at seeing it thrown around so casually. Now imagine it from the perspective of someone who isn't as supportive.

My thoughts exactly. My assumption is that Jeremy's never talked to anyone with dyed hair or piercings.

You know what they say about assumptions..

The metaphor chosen is weak because it requires a generalization of others choices that is false.

"Remember the girls in school who were not overly ugly or attractive yet still wanted to be the center of attention?"

No, I remember individuals who died their hair because they liked the style and wanted to express what it meant to them.

I think you missed the point.

In all sincerity I appreciate the concern, and I do understand the comparison the author has made, I even agree with some of the observations.

I tend to think it's best to stay away all forms of analogy unless the goal is demonstrative and abstract enough to fully warrant it. Using a bad metaphor to kick off an otherwise straightforward argument is asinine.

Perhaps the metaphor was crap, my point was I feel these desktops are a cheap and silly way to attract attention to an otherwise good operating system.

I was trying to draw the parallel with girls who do crazy things to get attention when they have better qualities to share. It seems like that point wasn't well drawn out, which is my fault.

This is a matter of polish. If Unity were as fast as synapse, and would ease up on the configurability issue (like Gnome Shell has with its cool extensions site), it would be head and shoulders better than the tired old start menu.

Ubuntu was never 'targeting hackers'. That is why they used to use slogans like 'linux for humans'. However, they always have and still do provide a full repo of packages, including xubuntu, lubuntu, etc. which anyone who claims to be a 'hacker' should have ZERO problem installing. As always, Ubuntu is a Linux distro, i.e. they provide packages, which is a very basic difference from what you are getting out of Windows.

I found the analogy distastefully sexist (some of the smartest people I have known dyed their hair funny colors, for fun) and the article to be mostly a long, entitled rant.

So in this metaphor, are you the crotchety old man at the mall passing judgement against the teenage girls? Imagining you're fighting societal decay when really you're just xenophobic?

A crotchety old man with a motorola brick phone and a HUGE PC sitting at home

A better analogy for Windows 8 is a recently divorced older man who decides that the club scene is where he should be, so he starts dressing differently in an attempt to attract younger mates. However, he can still be dad to his teenage kids, but prefers that they call him by his new nickname: P-money.

"Dad, ugghh, I mean pmoney..."

Some of the best ADULTS that i've worked with had pink hair, tattoos, and were into things like roller derby, they never "got over it."

To be fair, tattoos are permanent :)

"If they provide some sort of functionality for your device you’ll gladly install a new OS every 6 months. You want flashy and new, not old and stale. You want to be able to stand 50 feet away and know that your operating is different from the rest. If you want stability and proven formulas, you’d get an Apple product."

Unity applications haven't changed a lot since it came out, still using basically the same gtk3 theme. And what was that "drastic" UI change? A Quicksilver-/Vista-/KDE-like search functionality for programs? Sure, a few hardcore users were bothered, but mainly because it didn't look like Win95 all of a sudden. The main apps are still the same. Metro is a big change, but underneath there's still the same old GUI, let's see if the new one doesn't go the way of OS X Dashboard on normal desktop devices (I'm not meant enough to cite Bob).

Now, in what regard is Apple more stable? Sure, iOS isn't changing a lot, as the visible OS functionality is still close to 0, mostly being an app launcher and providing the basic APIs. But don't tell me that Lion's scroll handling (weird/non-existant scroll-bars, scroll wheels heading in the wrong direction) or "Mission Control" is the epitome of stability. Never mind the whole skeuomorphic shtick or the "Save As" debacle. And decrying half-yearly updates soon after Mountain Lion came out?

I wouldn't put them in the same class.

I love Ubuntu Linux... when I ssh into it. From the viewpoint of a hardcore unix command line programmer, putty on Windows is much better than all the various *terms that come with Ubuntu, all of whom feature their own unique of fubared cut and paste. (xterm is better than most, but in 2012 the scroll wheel on the middle button conflicts with the cut-and-paste use)

I only have one X Windows application I need so I can pretty much ignore Unity.

As for Metro, I can say that the Metro launcher is a better launcher for desktop apps than the start button used to be. I see some promise in the Metro UI, and my experience as a Silverlighter in a past life leads me to believe it should be fun to program for.

On the other hand, there are hardly any apps for Metro and the ones Microsoft supplies really suck in the preview version. There's the "XBox Live" application where it seems you can't play any games (even minesweeper) if you don't have an XBox.

What the hell is this? Is this just "iTunes" for the XBox or is every Win 8 system going to be an XBox now?

Watch a video from your hard drive in the Win 8 preview and when you're done you'll see teasers for all of these videos that you might be able to buy if you were able to buy any at all, etc...

Putting Ubuntu in the same boat as Windows 8 is not fair. Ubuntu has a much simpler UI that hasn't been split into confusing dual tablet/desktop interfaces.

Contrast this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6z6hn6wZlg&feature=play...

with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0fsyb-ttcw

My only gripe with Unity is that there is no single click workspace switcher instead they copied the stupid OSX two click "Spaces" UI. The single click switcher has been on linux since like 1992 and was an aspect Apple had clearly half assed when 'borrowing' the linux interface. I don't know why Unity copied the botched version.

Is that a big issue? I don't use the UI for switching workspaces, just ctrl-alt-arrow key. Works perfectly and faster than clicking.

What the post says makes sense if you assume that it's an entirely cosmetic change, which it's not.

YMMV on the styles (I'm undecided on them), but there's a ton of stuff under the hood that just couldn't be slapped into the desktop, without huge drawbacks or compromises. In the second section the post kind of recognizes this saying they're doing it because "the world is going mobile"/low power, but then immediately goes on with "It's change simply for the sake of change", and I don't think it can be both. Simple squares, non-overlapping windows and text rather than (pixel shader'd) graphics aren't just an aesthetic thing, there's a fair amount of practicality in there.

I can't speak for Windows 8, but I'm a 'hacker', and I'm using Unity right now, I don't see what's the fuss about it.

I hate the sidebar, just like I hate the Windows Start Menu, but I can't see any reason to use it(then again I'm a vim person, and keyboard/shortcut oriented).

I love being able to call up the search window and select the app or document I'm looking for in two/three keystrokes, tops, much faster than looking it up in a menu with a mouse.

If I want to see which apps are active or switch on the fly then I go ALT-TAB and ALT-tilde.

You can use the interface like a power user or a general user, you are given the option to do both.

Most people I've talked to hate Unity, a few say it's "OK" and a tiny fraction actually like it. If you like it and can use it that's great, but most people don't and their opinions are being ignored by Canonical.

I wouldn't say their opinions are being ignored by Canonical. I don't have any insight into their processes, but I do know that things don't become popular by not listening to your target audience. And Ubuntu is popular.

Rather I think they're taking the complaints exactly as they should be: people outside of the target audience trying to convince them that they don't have a target audience. They do. It's just different from the target audience of Debian or Arch. We can draw a straight parallel to Windows 8. The target audience is demanding easier UI and a tablet-like experience. Those outside of the target audience are complaining that this audience does not exist.

In both cases (Unity and Metro), the developers put in an option for those that don't like the change. Canonical keeps an up-to-date repository of alternative desktop environments, and Microsoft left the desktop in Windows 8.

Ubuntu is nothing but a Linux distribution. The job of a distribution is to provide packages, not dictate to you which packages you must use.

I use Ubuntu because it seems to still be the desktop distro most widely supported by third-party apps and drivers, and I have had good success with release upgrades. Otherwise, if I had any problem with Ubuntu's package repos, there's no reason not to use Debian or Fedora instead. Among desktop distros, Debian stable is great if you think Ubuntu LTS doesn't have a long enough lifespan, Fedora is great if you have a little more experience with Linux and want faster package updates. Both Debian and Fedora have always had more 'hacker cred' than Ubuntu without losing the benefits of being mainstream distros, if that is what you are looking for. If you want even more hacker cred, try BSDs, Slackware, Arch, Gentoo.

Canonical isn't forcing anything upon you or anyone else. They aren't doing anything unethical with Unity's design. Nor is there anything to distinguish your opinion as more worth listening to than others'. As a private company, it is Canonical's choice how they spend their money and try to build market share. You can type 'sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop' in seconds. You aren't paying anything for it. And there are really no external forces pushing you to use Ubuntu over anything else. It's just a distribution of packages. Serve yourself however you please - this shouldn't be a problem for you, since you are complaining that Ubuntu has abandoned 'hackers'.

The biggest problem with Unity (for ME!!!!) is its performance, I have issues with how it behaves on a dual screen. Otherwise its perfectly fine. It's the OS X dock on the left hand side. To me, Metro is a larger start menu that's faster than the other ones and I don't use the full screen metro apps on my desktop or laptop, although they make perfect sense on a tablet; although I'm sure some people will and it will be fine. A lot of people maximize their windows and use them, so why not give them no chrome and just all window.

I do not like Unity and its sidebar, and I'm saying that as a non-regular Linux user, which I assume puts me in the target market for Ubuntu, strangely enough.

I also do think the Metro UI is a passing fad, of which we'll probably get bored within a year, and if Windows 9 continues using it, it won't feel that exciting by then, especially considering it still gets in the way of using the PC as people are used to. We've had this sort of "UI for kids" trend with websites before, and it will probably pass just as quickly as it did back then:

http://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/5192012043239windows8vsaol.j...

Well that's one way to put it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com