>I think what most are arguing against this decision is the level of >"migration" it will attract from Windows users. Our experience with demo->ing >Ubuntu with Windows users was really eye-opening - [1] they don't care if it >looks cool; [2] they don't care if it feels fast; [3] they >want something >that they are already accustomed too; and [4] something that requires less >(re)-learning.
My experience is a bit different for introducing Ubuntu to the company where I work. First, the MS office support. If Ubuntu runs MS Office, then it will be fine, regardless of the new interface (two panels top and buttom), I know there is wine and crossover and that is not enough for the most part, something will break. Second is the printer support. Third is the interoperability with Windows shares. Nautilus is easy to learn for them, except for handling thumb drives which is quite different in Windows. (imagine using MS Office then the user will expect that the thumb drive will be available through File > Open). >When we demoed Ubuntu, we made it look like Windows XP and Windows 7, as in >customized as much as possible, and still those 4 I mentioned >above still >came up. You can never expect Linux to behave like Windows, my suggestion is not to make Ubuntu Linux to be looked like Windows XP/7, its futile, Linux is not Windows. My concern for the most part, as I stated, application + printer, the rest is configurable (AD support, shares etc.) >So changing the desktop to Unity default, based on our experience, will >further make the Windows users to _not_ to migrate, nor even try. >"Unity for >desktop as default" will not break that ice. For netbook, sure, it _is_ a >netbook after all, we need space and speed. But for a >desktop as default? >It's a bad decision. Its too early to decide, whether its bad or good, but I will go for the good one, since I voted a +1 for this move. >This clearly tells me that Canonical is done with the "come Windows users try >us out" phase. The recent decisions, from Jaunty onwards, were >all signs to >me that they have a new vision and a new objective. They are now treating >Ubuntu as an independent "OS". A product worthy to be >called an Operating >System in and of itself. Ubuntu is Ubuntu. Ubuntu _is_ _the_ OS. I am hoping that the recent attack against Ubuntu as a mere packaging company does not inspire us to say that Canonical wants her OS to be apart from the Linux core. Ubuntu may not contributing more to upstream developers, but the distro is my default desktop when migrating large number of users to Linux, they have done a wonderful job of creating a user friendly desktop. >Right now, the popular OS are: Mac (for Unix, lolz), Windows, and Linux. Most >are mis-informed about the name/brand "Linux" but not with >"Ubuntu". I only >hope that the good reputation they have built behind the brand "Ubuntu" will >bring the product to greater heights and success >with the new path and future >they want to bring it to. This is NOT Ubuntu/Canonical's fault for creating a bad name for "Linux" as an OS. Whose fault? The last time I check, this is my list: Asus, Acer and Lenovo. Lenovo's linux got pre-installed on some of their notebooks is junk and unusable (CLI). Acer's inclusion of Android as a dual-boot with Win7 (Another linux-based) is horrible. Asus' EEE line of netbooks got quickly replaced with Windows XP. At least Ubuntu offers the default Gnome(A Unix DE). >Maybe one day it will be like this: Mac, Windows, and Ubuntu. ^_^ One day, most applications are web-based, and the looks of Mac and Windows are irrelevant to the user as long as their is a "Web" browser that will run their applications. My opinion. The inclusion of Unity for the next release to my opinion is a welcome one. We do have a lot of DEs in Linux, but none of them even close to mainstream adoption not because the fault is on their side, but to me, it is because the "application support." Many ISVs today, as I noticed, were supporting Ubuntu in tandem with RHEL and other popular Linux distros. The more applications that will run on top of GNU/Linux, the more hardware manufacturers will support GNU/Linux. Also, I believe we are in a "transition" period i.e., from traditional desktop to web-based apps, and at that time, Windows Desktop Environment becomes irrelevant, since the most important thing is the browser. ----- Original Message ----- From: "JC John Sese Cuneta" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:53:25 AM Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-PH] SJVN reports that "Ubuntu changes its desktop from GNOME to Unity" >I think what most are arguing against this decision is the level of >"migration" it will attract from Windows users. Our experience with demo->ing >Ubuntu with Windows users was really eye-opening - [1] they don't care if it >looks cool; [2] they don't care if it feels fast; [3] they >want something >that they are already accustomed too; and [4] something that requires less >(re)-learning. When we demoed Ubuntu, we made it look like Windows XP and Windows 7, as in customized as much as possible, and still those 4 I mentioned above still came up. So changing the desktop to Unity default, based on our experience, will further make the Windows users to _not_ to migrate, nor even try. "Unity for desktop as default" will not break that ice. For netbook, sure, it _is_ a netbook after all, we need space and speed. But for a desktop as default? It's a bad decision. This clearly tells me that Canonical is done with the "come Windows users try us out" phase. The recent decisions, from Jaunty onwards, were all signs to me that they have a new vision and a new objective. They are now treating Ubuntu as an independent "OS". A product worthy to be called an Operating System in and of itself. Ubuntu is Ubuntu. Ubuntu _is_ _the_ OS. Compare that to say Debian: Debian is the distro, Linux is the OS, hence "Debian Linux". Canonical look to me to be aiming for something like this: Person A: "What's your OS?" Person B: "Linux" Person A: "What distro?" Person B: "Debian" or some other distro… Person A: "How about you?" Person C: "Me? My OS is Ubuntu" Person B: "That's the distro, you should say Linux" Person C: "Huh? What is Linux? My OS is Ubuntu not Linux, whatever that is" They're repositioning Ubuntu down that path (or up that future). It's done being an "alternative", it's done being a "gateway to Linux". That's why they're deciding on major changes that many people are reacting against, like this one now. For us geeks, again, for "us geeks", it is as easy as installing whatever DE and DE-shell we want to use. For the average user, most of them are not comfortable with that, doesn't have time to learn and tinker and break their machines, and whatever reason why they are still an "average user". There are people built for building skyscrapers and people made to be just end-users of those skyscrapers. And there are people with plenty of time on their hands, and people who just wants everything familiar so they bother not with reading this and that just to do this and that. The phase where Canonical is now is for those with time on their hands to learn something new. And to some extent, the people who build buildings not the people who lives/use the end product. Is it a good move? Only time can tell. Or maybe the question is: Is it the right time to do this? Right now, the popular OS are: Mac (for Unix, lolz), Windows, and Linux. Most are mis-informed about the name/brand "Linux" but not with "Ubuntu". I only hope that the good reputation they have built behind the brand "Ubuntu" will bring the product to greater heights and success with the new path and future they want to bring it to. Maybe one day it will be like this: Mac, Windows, and Ubuntu. ^_^ On Tuesday, 26 October, 2010 12:09 PM, hard wyrd wrote: I agree. It was quite misleading. Regardless, I may be speaking for myself regarding this matter but, the UI decision isn't a deal breaker for me. What's so hard about doing "aptitude install your-favorite-ui-package" ? I find the new move to be refreshing and bold. I'm on gnome-shell for a long while now, and ive been using it on a production workstation every friggin day. I feel like I've been working much faster on gnome-shell than on GNOME. But that's just me I suppose. For the Unity decision? bring it on :). On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Allan E. Registos < [email protected] > wrote: Actually as one commentator pointed this out, the title is SJVN's article is misleading, it is not a departure from "GNOME" which is the desktop, but from the default shell of Gnome. Unity can be understood as a counterpart or another alternative of "Gnome Shell" which runs on top of Gnome. From: "Stephen Piana" < [email protected] > To: "Mailing List para sa Ubuntu Pilipinas (Philippines)" < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:15:21 PM Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-PH] SJVN reports that "Ubuntu changes its desktop from GNOME to Unity" update found this: http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/10/25/ubuntu-11-04-to-ship-unity/ :D On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Piana < [email protected] > wrote: Hhhhmm... "users want Unity as their primary desktop."? now that's funny. :p On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Allan E. Registos < [email protected] > wrote: At least for the 11.04 release. Here is the link: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17224/ubuntu_changes_its_desktop_from_gnome_to_unity Any thoughts? -- ubuntu-ph mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph -- Don't Mess With The TeNsAi!!! -- Don't Mess With The TeNsAi!!! -- ubuntu-ph mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph -- ubuntu-ph mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph -- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Penguin, penguin, and more penguin !" www.madforubuntu.com baudizm.blogsome.com -- ubuntu-ph mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph -- ubuntu-ph mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph
