Hacker News Reader

You talk like "the community" all has one opinion.

In reality, whoever is unhappy screams and claims to speak for "the community" as a way of trying to get their way. And almost always someone is unhappy.

Most of the time, an equally large subset of the community is not screaming because they are happy with that decision.

You could chase one side of the community and then the other forever, without reaching a stable outcome.

Sure, I understand. But why not make everyone happy, and give a choice? At least, for the small "little" tweaks that make everyone scream?

There are plenty of examples: globalmenu on/off, globalmenu hidden/showed by default, buttons on the left/right side of the window, size of the icons in the launcher, side of the screen on which the launcher appear, show the launcher on every screen or only the main one...

Did you even bother to read the announcement? They HAVE provided this exact choice.

Yes I have. No, they haven't.

All you can do right now is to move the global menu from the "global" bar to the window bar. You can't still have it back to "default", like other operative systems, and you can't still have it being visible by default.

And, by the way, this was just one small point of my post. Everything else still applies.

This is the same lamenting and strife that one could also apply to Apple. OSX is their way or the highway.

If Ubuntu listens to the loudest community whiners the UI would be a terrible mess. If you don't like the default desktop: sudo apt-get install -y fluxbox, or whatever of the dozens of other WM's are out there that you like better. Problem solved.

Ok, so default like which operating system, mac? windows? They are doing things differently, what's wrong with that? I like it and I use it, those who don't have plenty more DEs to choose from. By the way they do provide a way to change the size of the icons, since 12.04 at least.

(Can't reply to yours comments res0nat0r and eklavya, hopefully this will do anyway).

By default like the operative system with 90%+ of the marketshare - Windows. I'm not saying that they're doing it good, but 90%+ of the people using a computer expect it to act that way. I'm also not saying that it should be the default, just have a tiny little option somewhere (instead of forcing me to remove the appmenu* packages, which I know how to do it, but my parents sure don't).

I'm also not sure why are you attacking me and telling me to install another DE - I have (In fact, I don't even use Ubuntu anymore, as I don't like apt-get and some other stuff). I'm just saying that they should add some options to make everyone happy. I have the same feeling towards Gnome shell, but at least this one has easy-to-install plugins.

Hey :) nobody is attacking you. They have given you that option for menus now but if it's not enough there is always KDE(which I also use and love by the way ;) ) It goes both ways, they can't force you to use their stuff and you can't force them to do it your way. Let evolution take it's course, only good UIs will remain.

For my parents I have installed Kubuntu, KDE always works and always has the features you need.

How can I move the menu bar under window title? I actually like to move windows by the title bar and not move my mouse over the whole screen to the global menu.

Even with the global menu, you can still move windows by the titlebar. Furthermore, you've always been able to move windows by dragging a window while holding the Alt key. You can also disable the global menu entirely by removing the appmenu-gtk, appmenu-gtk3, appmenu-qt, and indicator-appmenu packages. (This does break the HUD however)

why not make everyone happy, and give a choice

They've already given users several choices. They're called Kubuntu, Xubuntun and Lubuntu.

Parent is not debating DE options. Parent is talking about specific options for a specific DE.

It takes a great deal of effort to provide a configurable option and acceptable configuration UI for every single option in a DE. It also greatly increases the number of custom configuration combinations and the testing required. It's not a zero-cost option at all.

I think it's time for a Gubunto that uses GNOME instead of Unity. :-)

Ubuntu Gnome is that choice now http://ubuntugnome.org/

or, you know, use debian.

I actually use Arch although I do like Debian too.

Give people choice: People who like it old way are still happy and people who like new stuff will just switch.

Make a dialog at the start of the session when you release new features, asking if you'd like to enable new features or keep your old settings for existing users. Install new features on by default. Everyone happy, no complaints.

Then collect stats after some time and see what is actually getting used and if 95% is in favor of some option - remove the old feature.

This could also be a nice incentive to provide stats to developers - your opinion gets counted.

While this would be the ideal, having too many options is kind of a hassle for third party developers.

I mean, you test on the latest version of Ubuntu, then the LTS version, then with Gnome3, MATE and Xfce, then with Kubuntu and Xubuntu, better test all of those in 32 bit as well as 64 bit, and with free and nonfree drivers for Intel ATI and nVidia graphics cards, and you're sick of testing before you've even got off the major Ubuntu variants.

Or you don't test like that, and I find I can't get Google Earth to work, or I get VPN software that can't disconnect properly if I use the Gnome3 network manager, or any of a dozen other annoyances.

> The unity sidebar is the biggest example. They refused to let users change the size of the icons for years. Even now, you're still limited by a small range they've decided on.

That's an example of so-called bullshit. The setting was added to the standard config util in Ubuntu 12.04, the first LTS with Unity. It was a setting in compiz config since 11.04, the very first release.

> I could go on and complain about Ubuntu all day (and not only about Unity - I'd like to talk about their tendency to patch everything downstream) but the message is "Canonical shot themself in the foot".

Of course, you can, but next when you'll want to complain, try to use it for more than 5 minutes. Don't speak for the whole userbase -- I'm a part of Ubuntu userbase, and I love Unity. I consider vanishing menus a great idea, because in practice it adds exactly zero problems with menu interaction, but saves space (less important) and reduces clutter on desktop (more important).

Listening to your userbase is a good idea if you want to keep that userbase happy.

Ubuntu's goal has always been to vastly expand its userbase to, shall we say, non-traditional Linux users. Now Ubuntu wants to expand into entirely new devices. These new users are, by definition, not in Ubuntu's userbase, so if Ubuntu wants to get them, listening to existing users is likely a detriment.

If you've been using Linux with various DE for years, and Ubuntu frustrates you, then Ubuntu is not the product for you. Ubuntu is going for people who don't even know what a "DE" is.

The instant Ubuntu becomes beholden to listening to its userbase is the instant it stops doing anything interesting and it loses whatever slim chance it ever had of being anything beyond a top ranker on DistroWatch.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Not sure he ever said it, but the point stands.

I have a third theory: The theory behind Unity was a theory and not based on empirical data collected from actual users. I am not comparing the design process to focus groups etc. but to the UX design methodology described in The Story of the Ribbon.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9kD693ie4

They don't have a vision, they just copy random crap. Thankfully there are alternative options.