Ubuntu 12.04 Can Unity Ever Be Made Tolerable?

[KBD47]

Can Unity Be Made Tolerable?
http://kbd-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.com ... -made.html

[craig10x]

It is very tolerable...it just takes some time...like working with it for a couple of weeks (and a positive attitude/open mind) to see how nice it really is to use
And it will continue to improve as it goes along...

Interesting blog...but i don't agree with you about the "tablet interface" part...it is actually a "dock-centric" interface...
windows 8...now THAT is a tablet interface

[KBD47]

It is very tolerable...it just takes some time...like working with it for a couple of weeks (and a positive attitude/open mind) to see how nice it really is to use

interesting blog...but i don't agree with you about the "tablet interface" part...it is actually a "dock-centric" interface...
windows 8...now THAT is a tablet interface

Thanks Craig
Actually I spent 2 months with Unity when it came out in the 11.04 release. My conclusion was that it was fine for just web surfing and stuff, but difficult for moving between numerous pages, files, docs, and apps, the traditional desktop worked better for me with heavier use. I think 12.04 Unity is much improved, the biggest improvement is being able to shrink the launcher for small screens, it is also more stable.
As for tablets, Canonical has made no secret that it wants Ubuntu/Unity on tablets and phones and tvs. It's in articles across the web and I can look up a few if you like. They have bought into one-interface-for-all-things even before Windows 8 jumped on the bandwagon. Now this is good or bad depending upon your viewpoint. I don't think one-size-fits-all works well in every situation. Production machines, in my view, benefit from a classic desktop like Cinnamon, KDE, MATE, Xfce. But probably for the average laptop/netbook user who does email, facebook, surfs the web, and not much else, Unity is fine. And that last part covers probably 80% of computer users.
Thanks again for feedback on the article!
KBD47

[Wolfen69]

but difficult for moving between numerous pages, files, docs, and apps, the traditional desktop worked better for me with heavier use.

I guess some people just don't adapt as well as other people. I have no problems moving between multiple apps and windows. Then again, I'm awesome like that. I can use any DE and be productive. Openbox to Unity and everything in between.

[MALsPa]

Unity in 11.04 has been fine here. I'm messing around with a 12.04 live session right now, and things look even better. Only for email, web-surfing, etc.? Like craig10x and Wolfen69, I have no problem moving between multiple apps and windows in either Unity or GNOME Shell. I like "traditional" desktops, but I like the new stuff just as well.

I know that Canonical wants Unity on tablets, etc., but using it on the desktop is nothing at all like using a smart phone or tablet, in my opinion.

[bimsebasse]

Unity was originally developed for netbooks which explains the full screen optimization but it would be rubbish as a touch screen interface as it is now, as would Gnome Shell. IMO starting the tablet comparison thing is the quickest way to not be taken seriously.

What is wrong with tablets anyway? Are they fundamentally flawed in some way? The whole thing reeks of old man shaking fist at teenagers. Everything that strays far from Windows 95 is a tablet interface, no matter if it is or if it isn't.

[monkeyboy]

Its a preference thing, some folks can use Unity and be happy and some folks can't. That's fine because there are all kinds of options available and we can all be happy. Enjoy

[craig10x]

absolutely monkeyboy, but as malspa and bim mentioned, i like all kinds of de's...am very fond of the mint slab style menu too but get along fine with unity...because i gave it a fair chance to see if i'd adopt to it...i think the problem is that a lot of the detractors do not really give it a fair chance...

i also hate when they call it a tablet interface when to me, it looks like a very long dock and acts like one too
windows 8 with that "tile structure"...now THAT looks like a tablet interface to me

[KBD47]

Unity was originally developed for netbooks which explains the full screen optimization but it would be rubbish as a touch screen interface as it is now, as would Gnome Shell. IMO starting the tablet comparison thing is the quickest way to not be taken seriously.

What is wrong with tablets anyway? Are they fundamentally flawed in some way? The whole thing reeks of old man shaking fist at teenagers. Everything that strays far from Windows 95 is a tablet interface, no matter if it is or if it isn't.

Am I the only one who follows Linux news?

Canonical's decision to move to Unity was based on its desire to create an interface that works better on devices that do not primarily use mice, such as smartphones, tablets and televisions.
Source: The Inquirer (http://s.tt/15NOL)

Canonical plans to expand its Ubuntu Linux distribution so it could be used on smartphones, tablets and other touch interface consumer electronics, said Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth.
http://www.onemediatech.com/?p=3784

Canonical, for better or worse, has designed an all-in-one interface to work across various devices, and not aimed primarily at the computer desktop as other Linux interfaces. This has been in Linux news for the past couple of years, nothing new to see here I'm just amazed at this point that after Canonical admits it, why there is still defensiveness about it
None of this means that Unity cannot be, or should not be used on laptops and desktops. I think Unity is vastly improved over earlier versions. I expect Ubuntu will win back some users with the 12.04 release.
BTW I have a Kindle Fire tablet and like it just fine

[altair4]

Canonical, for better or worse, has designed an all-in-one interface to work across various devices, and not aimed primarily at the computer desktop as other Linux interfaces.

I agree. And I believe that's why it's called Unity. It's really the ultimate extension of where Gnome was heading anyway.

Ubuntu may have the last laugh on all this as Gartner and other organizations that are set up to tell us what we are supposed to think keep telling up that the desktop ( the box - you know, large heavy rectangular box, multiple hard drives, etc... ) is dead.

What's not entirely clear to me though is who's going to use it. I can't imagine a TV, Phone, or Tablet manufacturer shipping a product with Ubuntu on it. It may very well be running Linux but it's internals and user interface will be in complete control of the manufacturer not Ubuntu. Unless of course Canonical plans on getting into the hardware business.

[bimsebasse]

Unity was originally developed for netbooks which explains the full screen optimization but it would be rubbish as a touch screen interface as it is now, as would Gnome Shell. IMO starting the tablet comparison thing is the quickest way to not be taken seriously.

What is wrong with tablets anyway? Are they fundamentally flawed in some way? The whole thing reeks of old man shaking fist at teenagers. Everything that strays far from Windows 95 is a tablet interface, no matter if it is or if it isn't.

Am I the only one who follows Linux news?

Canonical's decision to move to Unity was based on its desire to create an interface that works better on devices that do not primarily use mice, such as smartphones, tablets and televisions.
Source: The Inquirer (http://s.tt/15NOL)

Canonical plans to expand its Ubuntu Linux distribution so it could be used on smartphones, tablets and other touch interface consumer electronics, said Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth.
http://www.onemediatech.com/?p=3784

Canonical, for better or worse, has designed an all-in-one interface to work across various devices, and not aimed primarily at the computer desktop as other Linux interfaces. This has been in Linux news for the past couple of years, nothing new to see here I'm just amazed at this point that after Canonical admits it, why there is still defensiveness about it
None of this means that Unity cannot be, or should not be used on laptops and desktops. I think Unity is vastly improved over earlier versions. I expect Ubuntu will win back some users with the 12.04 release.
BTW I have a Kindle Fire tablet and like it just fine

KBD, there's a difference between future plans and Unity here and now, the ultra KEYBOARD friendly, empty desktop with important UI elements that only show on MOUSE over is not anymore tablet friendly than gnome panel - it takes much more than big icons and full screen friendliness to be a tablet interface. Until Unity actually is made for tablets and it isn't just a plan for the future, Unity evidently is and works like a desktop/laptop/netbooks interface, not a tablet/smartphone interface.

[craig10x]

altair4, you might be interested in this (ubuntu tv is already on the way)....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwiFrN-fZTg

yes, they are actively developing ubuntu and unity to be on tv's and all kinds of devices, making agreements with various manufacturers...
ubuntu as an os system will always be open source and free but they want to also make it a commercial success as well...

Also, in many countries outside the U.S., laptops and desktops are already being manufacturered with ubuntu as the default os...

[KBD47]

Canonical, for better or worse, has designed an all-in-one interface to work across various devices, and not aimed primarily at the computer desktop as other Linux interfaces.

I agree. And I believe that's why it's called Unity. It's really the ultimate extension of where Gnome was heading anyway.

Ubuntu may have the last laugh on all this as Gartner and other organizations that are set up to tell us what we are supposed to think keep telling up that the desktop ( the box - you know, large heavy rectangular box, multiple hard drives, etc... ) is dead.

What's not entirely clear to me though is who's going to use it. I can't imagine a TV, Phone, or Tablet manufacturer shipping a product with Ubuntu on it. It may very well be running Linux but it's internals and user interface will be in complete control of the manufacturer not Ubuntu. Unless of course Canonical plans on getting into the hardware business.

I could see Unity on a tablet if the bar was moved from the side to the bottom. It would not be all that far removed from the Gingerbread Android system running right now on the Kindle Fire. But a blocky bar on the left side would not leave much screen room unless the bar was reduced to just a sliver. Even on a netbook it eats up too much of the screen at default size. I have it set to the minimum of 32 and its not too bad size wise.
I just can't see a tablet taking the place of a laptop/desktop for extensive tasks like word processing, editing photos and video, etc. For light use as in web surfing, email, facebook, tablets are fine.

[KBD47]

KBD, there's a difference between future plans and Unity here and now, the ultra KEYBOARD friendly, empty desktop with important UI elements that only show on MOUSE over is not anymore tablet friendly than gnome panel - it takes much more than big icons and full screen friendliness to be a tablet interface. Until Unity actually is made for tablets and it isn't just a plan for the future, Unity evidently is and works like a desktop/laptop/netbooks interface, not a tablet/smartphone interface.

bimsebasse, the traditional desktop interface is mouse-centric, two dimensional, and built for productivity. You can move across the screen and quickly access everything on the computer with few mouse clicks, and the open apps show up in preview buttons across the desktop. For a desktop user with a mouse, and even a laptop user with a touchpad--it just doesn't get any easier than this. Any noob can sit down to that interface and intuitively find their way around.
The new desktop interfaces require the user to find their way through layers, to search for apps and files and programs with text input, to learn and memorize keyboard shortcuts. Sit someone down in front of Gnome Shell or Unity who is not familiar with these desktops and I suspect they will have a larger learning curve than with the traditional desktop paradigm.
All that is putting aside the phone/tablet interface question. I can only say that Unity and Gnome-Shell seem much more like my tablet interface than KDE or Gnome 2 does.
The bottom line for me is productivity. Gnome-Shell and Unity are perfectly fine desktops for what they are. I don't think they are: bad, evil, or the worst thing ever to happen to computing
I fault Unity/Canonical because they have forced a particular workflow upon users instead of allowing users to configure the desktop as they wish. We would not have anything to talk about had Canonical allowed for the tools/options to move Unity around, add in a menu/app tree, just do some basic configuration. But with Unsettings, Myunity, Ubuntu Tweak, some configuration is being allowed back in, I think enough to give Unity a second chance for many people. But I also think Unity, especially on desktop computers with mouse users, is not in the same class as desktop designs geared for that use.
I'm not as familiar with Gnome Shell, but it looks to me like the use of Extensions is finally allowing that interface the ability to be configured.

[bimsebasse]

bimsebasse, the traditional desktop interface is mouse-centric...

... "traditional" being the keyword. Unity are Gnome Shell are not traditional desktop interfaces, they are "modern" or "non-traditional" desktop interfaces, not touch screen interfaces (obviously). Both can relatively easy be made and customized into something not too far from it (Gnome Shell almost completely).

[bimsebasse]

bimsebasse, the traditional desktop interface is mouse-centric...

... "traditional" being the keyword. Unity are Gnome Shell are not traditional desktop interfaces, they are "modern" or "non-traditional" desktop interfaces, not touch screen interfaces (obviously). Both can relatively easy be made and customized into something not too far from the traditional Windows 95 desktop (Gnome Shell almost completely).

[MALsPa]

The bottom line for me is productivity. Gnome-Shell and Unity are perfectly fine desktops for what they are.

Reading through this thread, other people aren't having issues with productivity when using GNOME Shell and/or Unity. I'm not; if I was, I'd wouldn't bother to use either one of them, you can believe that! I don't have time to waste on something that doesn't work for me.

I guess it's a problem for you, but other people are fine with these desktops, and it isn't just people who do nothing but check their emails and surf the web.

[MALsPa]

In fairness to KBD47, I think one thing that would make Unity (and GNOME Shell) fairly tolerable to a lot of people is if by default the main panel showed running apps, optionally from all workspaces or just from the current one. Or if something like that was easy to turn on with a click or two. That's the "traditional" approach, and really, what was ever wrong with it?

Of course, we have the little ticks on the left side of the Launcher in Unity; and I get around in GNOME Shell quickly by using the Overview and the workspaces list (I love that "dynamic workspaces" feature!).

I was able to adjust to the available tools in Unity and GNOME Shell so that I can quickly get to where I want to go when I have numerous apps running. But would it be such a bad idea to have the main panel be more like what folks are used to?

[craig10x]

Thinking of the title of this thread and then seeing this thread at ubuntu forums gave me a good chuckle
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1976855

For those that complain about unity...read it...here was a guy who after getting quite use to both mac and unity way of doing things, he temporarily had to go back to using ubuntu 10.04 and got a bit lost when having to do things the old way (which unity haters "praise" so much) ...

Like i have always said..one simply needs to get use to it..problem is too many give up too fast...also of course, there is a tendency to resist "change"...

[xenopeek]

problem is too many give up too fast

Can you please stop naming this a problem? I don't feel like I have a problem because I dislike Unity... As an analogy, I drink tea and I dislike coffee. My dislike is not a problem of "giving up too fast". I just don't like it I'm happy drinking tea, so can you please let me be and stop trying to push me to drink coffee? That is what you comments sound like. Sorry if that is a bit harsh, but I really don't like coffee and am getting tired of telling people telling me I should "get used to it". Same for Unity

I know a lot of people that are happy and productive with Unity, from average users to programmers. There is nothing inherently wrong with Unity. Unlike certain other operating systems, on Linux there is plenty of choice to use a different desktop environment if you don't like one. Let users enjoy their choice please