Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69

Thread: Many Ubuntu Users Still Hate The Unity Desktop

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhansonxi View Post
    There are a lot of Ubuntu bugs which are really upstream problems. Intel 8xx integrated graphics devices are almost unusable (FDO). Some wireless devices are broken and can cause system lockups (kernel). SCSI scanner permissions are often wrong and prevent saned and Apache from accessing them (UDEV). I've encountered several GNOME/GTK bugs.

    The desired bug reporting process is to report issues to Ubuntu first to see if it is a Ubuntu-specific problem. If not, then forward them to Debian to see if it is in their packages. If it is not a Debian-specific problem it should go upstream from there.

    The problem is that bugs reported to Ubuntu take forever to be reviewed by anyone, especially bugs related to specific hardware. Often the only response is from triage volunteers that tell you to try the latest Ubuntu version. If you don't respond then it gets marked invalid. I've given up an bugs that had that happen for four or more releases. It basically is up to the end user to install Debian and other distros to determine if the bug is an upstream problem or not. This is really time consuming.
    I'm glad you brought up bug submission. Too many times I had crashes trying to submit a bug only to hit the cancel button when I discovered I had to sign up to actually submit them. I don't need another account on the Internet. If you want bug reports, accept them anonymously.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I've used it actively since natty betas and it isn't all bad. Bugs aren't really a problem anymore, just design choices.

    I hate that I can't customize it. Top panel takes way too much space for a netbook and won't hide. The launcher OTOH always hides, but I'd like to keep it visible on my desktop. Worst of all, nothing adapts to font size, so it's an accessibility nightmare.

    DockbarX + cardapio on maverick was a much better interface. I could install it on natty, but I've been using Unity in the hope that they'll fix it. I'll reconsider once oneiric is usable.

    Edit: In short it has better defaults than the old gnome interface, but it limits tweaking.
    Last edited by Otus; 08-02-2011 at 03:52 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Many Ubuntu Users Still Hate The Unity Desktop
    And the rest don't use it .

    Actually I think it's OK on small screens, it just sucks on laptops and desktops. Everyone seems to be pushing GUIs that are designed for phones and tablets onto systems with big screens, and that's just insane.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    And the rest don't use it .

    Actually I think it's OK on small screens, it just sucks on laptops and desktops. Everyone seems to be pushing GUIs that are designed for phones and tablets onto systems with big screens, and that's just insane.
    Of course, the worst one is still Win8
    (hopefully, Mark will manage to beat that sometimes soon)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m4n1sh View Post
    I read the post and have to come to the conclusion that it represents the users - online people

    There are only a few things in this list over which ubuntu developers should care about. Rest should be simply discarded as personal opinions

    Unity
    I can understand this part. Let the developers fix it.

    Aping the mac's UI brain damages its plain damn wrong uninnovative and stupid
    Typical Apple hater. I am not a supporter, but this is bullcrap. OSX's is more usable in usability wise. Like GNOME2 was a revolution?

    Inclusion of Mono
    Cry me a river.

    I don't like python. Remove it! I am going to mention it as negative point of ubuntu.

    PulseAudio
    Pulseaudio problems exist even now?

    Frequent regressions.
    Paid developers can't do everything. Community has volunteers who have their own life to take off too

    it does a LOT of marketing, but does very LITTLE to progress
    Knee jerk reactions. All my hardware has worked out till now. Except for one USB connection to router which does not have any open source driver AFAIK

    it has marketing cult and tries to steal the focus from linux kernel, gnu, xorg on itself, claiming itself center of collaboration
    So they want the non-technical end user to come and learn what is kernel, gnu, xorg internals and appreciate it? Non-techies can't even make out that DE is a component of OS. What should Ubuntu do? In the About page write "We bring you the best OS which contains The Linux Kernel, GNU, XORG blah blah". By this time most of the people would have stopped reading the About page

    it has completely useless, unflexible in terms of modification, package system
    How? Completely useless? Inflexible? Looks like a knee jerk reaction

    it does not have any "linux" in its name
    Ubuntu is a brand. Linux is a trademark of Linux Torvalds for the kernel. I never seen Mercedes, Wal-Mart writing what they are with their name. I never heard "Mercedes Car", "Wal-Mart superstore chain". How much difference does it make.
    People who care about Ubuntu being a linux distribution already know. Those who don't care arn't going to care even if you force it down their throat

    the developers-users collaboration model is absent, instead users are animals to bugtrack for free. Good Lord, thanks for linux mint.
    Care to elaborate? I am one who triages bugs when I get time. I do some packaging too and get them sponsored. I build packages in PPA and give it to people for testing. I am not on Canonical payroll nor even a MOTU. LOL! Linux Mint was founded using Ubuntu as the base before coming up with Debian edition. Haters gonna hate

    it spoils the culture of foss and linux in particular with african theming
    What is wrong with African theming? Can I scream RACIST?

    I dislike that they removing good programs form base install and replace them with unstable/useless stuff
    Your mileage may vary

    I dislike Ubuntu because it uses Gnome instead of KDE
    Move on to KDE.



    I think it is due to these kind of knee-jerk reactions, developers have stopped caring much. They look at the complaint list. Pick up those which make sense and would help the wider audience than satisfying someone's personal choices.

    The only thing in this list I can completely agree to is Unity. It needs more time to improve. I am waiting till 12.04 release
    totaly agree with you.
    Most of people don't like [xxx] but do nothing to improove it.

    Most of people who said that they do not want mono for example just do it because it is MS and do not see that other company is worse today with DRM, business model,...
    Java is more risky today thanks to Oracle
    Apple with business model
    Google is big brother
    ...
    So stop crying, just do or do not but do not complain.

    The main issue is that Gnome migrate to Gnome 3/ KDE to KDE4 so big step like that take time to stabilize and to be as user friendly as before the switch.
    If we listen to this kind of people we will be still in dos/AS400/... because it is stable and I like bicolor system

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    44

    Default

    I tried Unity as a novelty but honesty didn't spend enough time to get used to the paradigm shift in the interface. Now I just login to classic desktop and will wait for Unity 2D to roll in before I give it another try. I don't see what the big deal for so many long time users to be hating on Ubuntu. Canonical is pushing software innovation/evolution to attract users from areas previously ignored. Previous linux users were disenfranchised windows and left on their own. Its takes a whole new direction to attracting new users long before they get to that frustration point in the windows experience. That direction may not be to long time users liking, but unlike closed source OS's they at least have options to packup and move.

    The only thing I can see Canonical is guilty of is perhaps they pushed Unity from netbook to mainstream a release or two to early. They could have phased it in as a "hey try out our future develop interface, please give us feedback" as a secondary login option on a default desktop install. Then in a release or two, let it overtake and make it the default login.
    Last edited by tweak42; 08-02-2011 at 04:39 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Otus View Post
    I've used it actively since natty betas and it isn't all bad. Bugs aren't really a problem anymore, just design choices.

    I hate that I can't customize it. Top panel takes way too much space for a netbook and won't hide. The launcher OTOH always hides, but I'd like to keep it visible on my desktop. Worst of all, nothing adapts to font size, so it's an accessibility nightmare.

    DockbarX + cardapio on maverick was a much better interface. I could install it on natty, but I've been using Unity in the hope that they'll fix it. I'll reconsider once oneiric is usable.

    Edit: In short it has better defaults than the old gnome interface, but it limits tweaking.
    The launcher can be configured to stay visible at all times. Various options are available in the Unity plugin of the Compiz configuration manager.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    251

    Default

    they should've helped the Gnome team with Gnome3.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m4n1sh View Post
    Aping the mac's UI brain damages its plain damn wrong uninnovative and stupid
    Typical Apple hater. I am not a supporter, but this is bullcrap. OSX's is more usable in usability wise. Like GNOME2 was a revolution?
    Um I call Bullshit on your calling bullcrap, OS X is THE worst when it comes to real usability.

    Let's just make a list of 10 things:

    1. Global menu:
    Global menus have always been an absolutely terrible design, it sacrifices usability for a few vertical pixels. Simple Usability test, have two windows open side by side, or otherwise such that both windows are fully visible. Now from having the focus on one window quickly open up a menu from the other window.

    On a mac: give focus to the other window and then move the mouse to the top panel
    On something reasonable: move mouse over to other window and click on menu.

    2. Scrollbars:
    OS X Lion has made scrollbars not only difficult to see but nigh impossible to actually use. Though one may argue that one should just use scrolling gestures but that brings us to...

    3. Scroll Gestures:
    in Lion instead of staying with the standards that everybody already knows they've reversed them in order to unify the gesture with their Ipad.. but problem the interface concept between a touch screen and a touchpad are completely different, particularly when a standard has already been established and accepted.

    4. Window buttons are on the wrong side unless you happen to be one of those left handed people:
    OS X is known for having their window buttons on the left side and on top of that instead of being icons they're colors, but that'll be point #5. There is a reason that those buttons are normally on the right, it is because most people are right handed and so it is both easier reach and more natural for people who are right handed. Now one might then point out: Why is the start button then normally on the left side then? It is simply because we are a culture that reads L-to-R, and thus naturally menus will cascade out to the right because of that, I imagine that R-to-L cultures have it on the other side, and you often see screenshots from asia with the menu bar on the right side of the screen.

    5. Window button colors are a non-obvious explanation of use to the average person
    While it's not hard to intuit the meaning or understand it after playing around with it, without a pictogram for explanation particularly in conjunction with #4 I can't just set the average user about using it and expect them to know what each one does.

    6. The dock bar
    Some people like dock bars and others of us detest them, from the usability failure that is making the icons accordion, to the fact that if any large amount of software is pinned to the dock which is effectively a start menu replacement, then the icons become small enough as to be unusable.

    7. Applications do not close when you have closed all windows
    To my knowledge under every other system when you tell a program to close from the window buttons it closes, on a mac it stays open until you use the global menu or the shortcut sequence to close it.

    8. Nonstandard shortcuts
    Although each of the three main systems have their own sets of shortcuts, there have come to be standards that are expected, such as the Ctrl-{c,v,x,a} set, Standard controls are of course a usability concern and Apple has decided to continue going against those standards by continuing to only have their old Apple shortcuts based off their apple key.

    9. Can't reposition things in the manner that you want, It's Apple's way or it's... Apple's way. You have no choice in this regard, and thus people cannot change the environment to suit their needs best. Instead you have to conform to the software rather than the software conforming to you.

    10. The filesystem tree is kludgy and fails to conform to the *nix standards we all know and love, while this specifically may not effect most users this is huge to me personally, and having things not where I expect them to be breaks usability for me. I mean why the hell are they not using /home for instance?
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 08-02-2011 at 05:00 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Unity is a very silly attempt to clone Mac OSX. If you wanted Mac on Linux you'd do a lot better to start with GNUStep and modify from there. The entire idea of taking gtk/gnome and modifying it into a clone of Mac is silly. You won't gain any application compatibility, it's not a paradigm the users are used to, and anything you create will undoubtedly get slammed for not having the same features/usability as Mac OSX. I used Linux for 10+ years, I still use it at work. I've moved to OSX for all my personal computers because I've frankly grown lazy, and I prefer the platform to the other options. It crashes a hell of a lot less than linux does, and I don't have to care about tweaking every little system setting. The biggest disappointment with linux is that it will never have media pipelining like quartz composer in OSX, yet it already has about 80% of the code needed to do it in GNUStep. I can see why Canonical picked up Gnome and are trying to make it into OSX, but the entire idea is badly flawed. They would have been better off IMHO paying developers to bring webkit to GNUStep and actually finishing the GNUStep desktop.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •