First: This is really a review of Unity, not Ubuntu. The main ways that Ubuntu/Linux differ from OS X have nothing to do with the UI, but rather the underlying system.
That said, I'm glad to see that somebody likes Unity. Ubuntu's switch to Unity is one of the reasons that I left Ubuntu for another distro.
It seems like Canonical is targeting its product more towards people like the author of this post, in which case it seems that their strategy may be working.
Those of us who have been using Gnome 2 for years have already streamlined and optimized our work flow in that environment. Whenever the UI changes, it breaks existing patterns of behavior that we usually don't even think about anymore. That's why people don't like change: it makes them less productive, at least temporarily as they streamline a new work flow. People didn't like the MS Office ribbon interface, the KDE 4 interface, etc., either. Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side, I found myself automatically and subconsciously moving the pointer to the right and clicking on an empty space, which was wasted effort and time, until I relearned that behavior.
People who haven't used Linux / Gnome before don't have those expectations and optimizations, so it's not surprising that they will have a more positive view of Unity. Also, Canonical is trying to make Unity emulate OS X to some extent, so the interface meets some expectations of Mac users. They will probably respond more positively.
I think the same thing happened to me. I had been using a tiling WM for a while before Natty came out, but I decided to give Unity a try and I generally found I could make it work pretty acceptably with just a bit of messing around, more nicely than GNOME 2 actually. I still switched back, but not for several weeks.
The opinions of Unity are definitely mixed. I personally think Unity is great, and I have been using desktop linux for a decade. So, I am also glad to see someone find Unity useful.
To apply your first point to your second paragraph: Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound.
I use Xubuntu on my netbook as my students can work out how to get a wordprocessor going or load a youtube video in class.
On the desktop pc I use dwm (large widescreen monitor) and I'm loving the efficiency. In fact, I install dmenu on all the computers and bind it to Super-Space.
> Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound.
Agreed - it wouldn't have been a reason by itself, but it was an annoyance.
More broadly, Ubuntu seems to be moving towards focusing on providing a polished interface, out-of-the-box support, and all of the other things that would be necessary for luring users away from OS X. That's fine, but they're frankly very low on my list of requirements for an OS, so I used the opportunity to switch to a distro that better fit my needs.
As I said, if that's their intended userbase, I'm glad their goal is working. It just so happens that I'm not one of those users.
Coming from an on and off user of ubuntu since Breezy Badger, I'm fine with Unity (especially after getting used to Windows 7 keyboard shortcuts). There are parts of Unity that I completely dislike (e.g. overlay scrollbar being enabled by default), but they're just minor annoyances.
The thing that I'm worried about though, similar to what you're pointing out, is that it feels like they're not making Ubuntu for the previous users of Ubuntu anymore. I still run 11.10 with Unity, but it's getting to a point where I'm noticing an increase of time where I am turning off a bunch of annoying things that Ubuntu have added over time.
I have XFCE on all my other machines that need a desktop environment and it looks like this sole Ubuntu machine will head that way soon.
Well, if they want to break more into the mainstream they will have to move closer to what users are used to. Personally I think it is a bold move to copy OSX instead of windows (if that's what's going on).
The kind of people who like the way it works now should also be able to change it back if they want. If not, we're talking about less than 1% of desktop users. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them, personally.
If a new user came to Ubuntu, like this person has, Unity will effect the reviews of Ubuntu. So IMO they will not care if its Unity. It's still on Ubuntu. So if this user was to say Ubuntu just sucked ass, then they're talking about the whole OS in one. Not just Unity.
Arch. I was already running Arch on my netbook, and it worked beautifully, so when I got a new computer the first thing I did was install Arch on it. Haven't looked back.
@pspeter3 - how has been your experience with Elementary -
especially your transition from Ubuntu? Things like package management (any apt-get changes), multimonitor support, wifi/sound drivers, etc. ?
They are doing really cool (and actually usable stuff) with features like Switchboard+Plugs, Synapse, Pantheon, etc. so am really interested in switching.
Because elementary is just ubuntu under the hood. The interface is different and so are the default apps but all the drivers and package management works identically. It's been a great transition. The power of ubuntu with the design of Mac essentially.
The Arch Wiki (and Beginner's Guide) make it really easy to set up your system, especially when combined with the list of commonly used/installed applications.
It takes a bit more time to set up, since you're building your system from the ground up with exactly the applications you want. Once you do, though, you know your system inside and out, and you can customize it exactly the way you want it.
If you have a 'do-it-yourself' attitude, you'll love Arch. If not, you may be annoyed by having to set up things that Ubuntu sets up during the installation (major things like the DE/WM, and minor things like setting up international fonts). Personally, I appreciate knowing exactly what and where everything is on my system and not having the added bloat, hence the switch.
Comments
First: This is really a review of Unity, not Ubuntu. The main ways that Ubuntu/Linux differ from OS X have nothing to do with the UI, but rather the underlying system.
That said, I'm glad to see that somebody likes Unity. Ubuntu's switch to Unity is one of the reasons that I left Ubuntu for another distro.
It seems like Canonical is targeting its product more towards people like the author of this post, in which case it seems that their strategy may be working.
Those of us who have been using Gnome 2 for years have already streamlined and optimized our work flow in that environment. Whenever the UI changes, it breaks existing patterns of behavior that we usually don't even think about anymore. That's why people don't like change: it makes them less productive, at least temporarily as they streamline a new work flow. People didn't like the MS Office ribbon interface, the KDE 4 interface, etc., either. Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side, I found myself automatically and subconsciously moving the pointer to the right and clicking on an empty space, which was wasted effort and time, until I relearned that behavior.
People who haven't used Linux / Gnome before don't have those expectations and optimizations, so it's not surprising that they will have a more positive view of Unity. Also, Canonical is trying to make Unity emulate OS X to some extent, so the interface meets some expectations of Mac users. They will probably respond more positively.
> Even when Ubuntu moved the window controls to the left side...
One of the first things I did when I upgraded to 10.04 was to move the window controls back to the right side.
http://quandyfactory.com/blog/59/ubuntu_1004_first_thoughts#...
I think the same thing happened to me. I had been using a tiling WM for a while before Natty came out, but I decided to give Unity a try and I generally found I could make it work pretty acceptably with just a bit of messing around, more nicely than GNOME 2 actually. I still switched back, but not for several weeks.
The opinions of Unity are definitely mixed. I personally think Unity is great, and I have been using desktop linux for a decade. So, I am also glad to see someone find Unity useful.
Unity is opinionated. That will always lead to mixed reactions, depending on whether your opinions match their opinions.
To apply your first point to your second paragraph: Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound.
I use Xubuntu on my netbook as my students can work out how to get a wordprocessor going or load a youtube video in class.
On the desktop pc I use dwm (large widescreen monitor) and I'm loving the efficiency. In fact, I install dmenu on all the computers and bind it to Super-Space.
> Unity is not Ubuntu. Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and roll your own systems based on the boxes (Openbox, Fluxbox) abound.
Agreed - it wouldn't have been a reason by itself, but it was an annoyance.
More broadly, Ubuntu seems to be moving towards focusing on providing a polished interface, out-of-the-box support, and all of the other things that would be necessary for luring users away from OS X. That's fine, but they're frankly very low on my list of requirements for an OS, so I used the opportunity to switch to a distro that better fit my needs.
As I said, if that's their intended userbase, I'm glad their goal is working. It just so happens that I'm not one of those users.
Ubuntu will never be as coherent and polished as Mac, and being #2 in this area is pointless.
Ubuntu should be supporting its users before they all leave, not trying to woo people who prefer something else.
Coming from an on and off user of ubuntu since Breezy Badger, I'm fine with Unity (especially after getting used to Windows 7 keyboard shortcuts). There are parts of Unity that I completely dislike (e.g. overlay scrollbar being enabled by default), but they're just minor annoyances.
The thing that I'm worried about though, similar to what you're pointing out, is that it feels like they're not making Ubuntu for the previous users of Ubuntu anymore. I still run 11.10 with Unity, but it's getting to a point where I'm noticing an increase of time where I am turning off a bunch of annoying things that Ubuntu have added over time.
I have XFCE on all my other machines that need a desktop environment and it looks like this sole Ubuntu machine will head that way soon.
Well, if they want to break more into the mainstream they will have to move closer to what users are used to. Personally I think it is a bold move to copy OSX instead of windows (if that's what's going on).
The kind of people who like the way it works now should also be able to change it back if they want. If not, we're talking about less than 1% of desktop users. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them, personally.
If a new user came to Ubuntu, like this person has, Unity will effect the reviews of Ubuntu. So IMO they will not care if its Unity. It's still on Ubuntu. So if this user was to say Ubuntu just sucked ass, then they're talking about the whole OS in one. Not just Unity.
Which distro did you leave for?
Arch. I was already running Arch on my netbook, and it worked beautifully, so when I got a new computer the first thing I did was install Arch on it. Haven't looked back.
Fair enough, I switched to elementary which has been ubuntu without unity for me. How hard was it to switch to Arch from Ubuntu?
@pspeter3 - how has been your experience with Elementary - especially your transition from Ubuntu? Things like package management (any apt-get changes), multimonitor support, wifi/sound drivers, etc. ?
They are doing really cool (and actually usable stuff) with features like Switchboard+Plugs, Synapse, Pantheon, etc. so am really interested in switching.
Because elementary is just ubuntu under the hood. The interface is different and so are the default apps but all the drivers and package management works identically. It's been a great transition. The power of ubuntu with the design of Mac essentially.
The Arch Wiki (and Beginner's Guide) make it really easy to set up your system, especially when combined with the list of commonly used/installed applications.
It takes a bit more time to set up, since you're building your system from the ground up with exactly the applications you want. Once you do, though, you know your system inside and out, and you can customize it exactly the way you want it.
If you have a 'do-it-yourself' attitude, you'll love Arch. If not, you may be annoyed by having to set up things that Ubuntu sets up during the installation (major things like the DE/WM, and minor things like setting up international fonts). Personally, I appreciate knowing exactly what and where everything is on my system and not having the added bloat, hence the switch.
Agreed! Arch = linux legos. :)
I like that analogy - I think I'm going to hold onto it!