Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Preview of Ubuntu's Unity Interface

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-see-what-you-did-there dept.

Ubuntu 382

itwbennett writes "In late October we learned that starting with the next release (11.04), Ubuntu would use Unity instead of GNOME as its default desktop interface. Now we know a bit more about what that will (and won't) mean for users. The move to Unity doesn't mean that Ubuntu is abandoning GNOME. It also doesn't mean that users will be forced to use Unity; they'll still be able to revert to the old GNOME interface. What it does mean, mainly, is that users will be presented with a simple interface — probably too simple for nuts and bolts types. The more 'radical shift' will be switching Ubuntu's base graphics system from the X Window System to Wayland. There users can expect that it will take some time before things are in working order. 'In other words,' says Steven Vaughan-Nichols who reviewed Unity for ITworld, 'Wayland will be an option, and one that only people who don't mind having their desktops blow up on a regular basis should fool with, in Ubuntu 11.04. By Ubuntu 11.10, it will be workable, and come the spring release two years from now, Ubuntu 12.04, we should, if all goes well, see a stable Wayland-based Unity desktop.'"

cancel ×

382 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419812)

Ubuntu has gone weird -- glad I switched back to Fedora earlier this year.

It's nice to have a desktop similar to my centos servers.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (3, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419894)

If "weird" includes Ubuntu's adoption of Wayland, I have bad news: Fedora is also dumping X for Wayland (eventually).

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419992)

From what I've heard at least they'll wait until it's ready before they decide if they should make the switch or not.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420754)

Ubuntu puts up the testing, coding, and support. That's the difference. They say, "We want to do this. It's probably broken now. In a couple releases it'll be probably working. After that it'll be standard." Fedora does that somewhat (rush in head-first to new versions), but on big technology switches they like to hang back a bit.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420006)

If "weird" includes Ubuntu's adoption of Wayland, I have bad news: Fedora is also dumping X for Wayland (eventually)

Fedora? The base OS for RHEL server systems? Is going to dump X so server admins will no longer be able to run graphical admin programs remotely from their servers to their desktop without using some horrific kludge like VNC? Apps which will apparently require OpenGL to render, on servers which don't even have OpenGL drivers?

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420068)

Is it completely impossible to get something similar into Wayland? It doesn't do it right now, but if it get enough momentum I can't think that someone isn't going to add it.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420110)

Is it completely impossible to get something similar into Wayland?

Every time I've seen someone ask the Wayland devs how they plan to support remote rendering, their response seems to be 'we don't. go away'.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (-1, Flamebait)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420150)

Sure, that may not be an important feature right now when most people don't even know what it is. But imagine that a few distributions picked it up and actually uses it, then what the current developers don't want to do isn't really important.

Huh? (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420234)

What are you talking about? Do YOU even know what it is?

Remote rendering in X is here NOW and has been for 20+ years!!!

Hello! Just set the DISPLAY environment variable.

Re:Huh? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420390)

Precisely, as confusing as the nomenclature can be, it's a client server model which doesn't require the client and the server to be on the same box. And yes indeed it's been that way for a really long time. It's not perfect, but you can do things like tunnel the connection over SSH or if you really want some other protocol. I suppose if you wanted to you could even tunnel it into a virtual machine.

The question though ultimately is whether or not it's better than some of the other techniques that people have used. But for Waypoint to completely neglect it is shortsighted to say the least.

Re:Huh? (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420790)

Confusing? X is the server, and handles connections to it telling it what to display. Like httpd (apache) is a server and handles a Web client telling it what Web page to send down the pipe. People weren't confused running the Tetrinet server, seeing the clients connect to them and output images to the screen; but they're confused running the X server, seeing the clients connect?

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420360)

Every time I've seen someone ask the Wayland devs how they plan to support remote rendering, their response seems to be 'we don't. go away'.

Wait, seriously? They're replacing X Windows with something which doesn't support remote displays?

WTF??? Is that true? That makes no sense whatsoever ... one of the best things about X is being able to have display from multiple sources.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420574)

X is much maligned but it still beats the pants off of everything else in this respect.

Copying MacOS is NOT the way to go here. It's horrific. It is the single worst OS in terms of remote desktops.

Even Windows has kind of come around to the Unix way of doing things. ...breaking what doesn't need fixing because they're taking Lemming FUD far too seriously.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (3, Informative)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420848)

Not implementing any sort of remote rendering would be suicide. Thankfully, it sounds like something they are going to work on. From the Wikipedia article on Wayland:

Wayland developers include several lead X.org developers,[9] who feel that a cleaner new design and protocol is more maintainable for the future.[14] One of them has envisaged providing remote access to a Wayland application by either 'pixel-scraping' (as in VNC and SPICE) or getting it to send a "rendering command stream" across the network (like RDP).[15] It is anticipated that X11 applications will be supported by an X server running as an application on Wayland.

Hopefully they go the RDP-like route, which im my opinion is vastly superior over the way X11 does it.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420086)

X will still run fine, even under Wayland, so relax.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420170)

X will still run fine, even under Wayland, so relax.

Sigh, we're not talking about running X and rendering on a Wayland desktop, we're talking about running Wayland apps and rendering on a remote desktop, the way you currently can with X. The biggest single advantage of X over Windows, which the Wayland developers seem quite happy to throw away in the quest for 'The Shiny'.

Given a choice between fancier compositing effects and being able to run any program on any machine while rendering on any other machine, I'll take the latter any day.

I love X, but remote rendering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420252)

is not 100% even today. I get hit by font problems (start emacs get nothing but little boxes) a couple of
times a year.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420286)

> Given a choice between fancier compositing effects and being able to run any program on any machine while rendering on any other machine, I'll take the latter any day.

Yeah me too - I use this all the time just on my little home network of 3 PCs - but it's just like Linux vs Windows: we're too small a segment for anyone to care about. We're destined to lose, because form is more important than function to most people.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (4, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420504)

From the Wayland FAQ
https://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/frequently-askeds-questions [google.com]

Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?

No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients. It's an interesting challenge, a very big task and it's hard to get right, but essentially orthogonal to what Wayland tries to acheive. This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420486)

RELAX? Here's what Wikipedia says:

"As of 2010[update], Wayland only works with open source drivers for Intel, AMD and Nvidia graphics cards, and Nvidia currently has no plans to support it in their proprietary drivers.[7]"

That makes it useless. Open source drivers are not useful for serious 3D work on Linux. If Wayland isn't supported by the vendor's drivers, that's going to be one MASSIVE clusterfuck.

That's not even mentioning the loss of remote display ability like we have had in Unix for 25 years or so!

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420656)

Nvidia has no plans to support it because as of now, NO ONE USES IT. If by way of Ubuntu support it gains traction, Nvidia likely would indeed support it.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420582)

You do realize that Windows doesn't support X11 (at least it's apps won't act as clients - there are servers) and many, many, MANY admins get by just fine with RDP right?

X11 isn't the absolutely only way to do remote access.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420038)

Isn't a Wayland a funded Red Hat project? It would look bad if Ubuntu got all the fame and glory for it while Fedora wasn't even using it.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420180)

Its not a Red Hat project, the guy works for red hat but hes doing it on his own time. So say the faq at least.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420328)

Its not a Red Hat project, the guy works for red hat but hes doing it on his own time. So say the faq at least.

Smells like a management issue at Red Hat.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420404)

If "weird" includes Ubuntu's adoption of Wayland, I have bad news: Fedora is also dumping X for Wayland (eventually).

If only because Fedora and now Ubuntu are producing desktops for the corporate world instead of the traditional geek users.

Lightweight.
Limited.
Locked-dowm.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420646)

You telling me I cant simply apt-get uninstall wayland?

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420682)

If a corporate admin (as the GP suggested) gave you a regular user account with no su permissions, then of course you couldn't use apt-get.

If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (2)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420018)

Linux Mint has all the good plug ins and none of the weird stuff thats been happening ubuntu while
still being compatible with ubuntu. The window buttons are still on the right, the start button is
still on the bottom.

Linux Mint will still use GNOME for the forseeable future.

Re:If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420092)

You know, you can change the appearance in Ubuntu if you want to.

Re:If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (2)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420216)

The old "But you can tweak it just how you like it"

No thanks Linux Mint works...right from the start.

Re:If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (1, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420368)

There's not a whole lot of "tweaking" involved in right clicking a bar, unlocking it, and dragging it to the bottom of the screen. You also don't have to do it every time you reboot, so it's a one time "fix."

Heck, I drag my Windows taskbar at work up to the top... (that's less mousing around from file menus to window titles. I never understood having the task bar on the bottom of the screen in Windows or Linux. I usually remove the bar at the bottom of Ubuntu and put the Window manager in the top bar.) It's also a lot easier to edit layouts in Linux than making edits to some of the other Windows 7 interface choices that require digging into the registry (like removing the search, "command bar," and tweaking window borders.)

Re:If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420166)

Ah, yes, Linux Mint. The distro that can't even be arsed to sign its fucking repositories.

Re:If you want Ubuntu without unity...Linux Mint (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420756)

Linux Mint will still use GNOME for the forseeable future.

By "still use" do you mean stick with GNOME 2 indefinitely or switch to GNOME 3? I haven't tried either Unity or GNOME Shell yet, but it seems pretty clear that they're both very different from a typical GNOME 2 desktop. I don't think it's fair to characterize Uubntu's switch to Unity as a major change for users in contrast with distributions that switch to GNOME 3.

Re:I'm glad I went back to Fedora earlier this yea (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420494)

I'm unimpressed even as a long time Linux and Ubuntu user. In fact, I'd say it sucks.

No screenshots? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419822)

Text is useless. I want screenshots!

Re:No screenshots? (1)

FunnyLookinHat (718270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419994)

+1

Re:No screenshots? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420320)

Ordinarily a post like this would be a troll... but in this case... Yeah we're looking a a graphical desktop environment here. Can we maybe, I dunno, see it?

Re:No screenshots? (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420752)

Search Google Images for Ubuntu Unity. Behold - screenshots.

That said, for shits n giggles I grabbed Unity on my 10.10 desktop to play around with it. I wasn't impressed. Maybe it'll get better by the time they make it standard, but for me, Docky was FAR more stable and polished. I'll probably just continue to use it.

"Preview" but no screenshots? (5, Insightful)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419870)

I'm sorry, how is this possibly a "preview" when there is not one screen shot? One link goes to an older /. article, the other goes to an all text article.

Can you please stop naming things that don't have photos like they do have photos?

Re:"Preview" but no screenshots? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419934)

http://ubuntudevelopers.blip.tv/file/4245457/

Well, I don't want it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420730)

I don't like it one bit. Why? I'll tell you:

  • It takes up the left side of your screen with permanently displayed application launchers.
  • It maximizes your windows when you touch the window to the top screen edge. Like Win7 does. They copied the one feature of Windows that I hate with every fibre of my being.
  • It looks and feels like it belongs in a kiosk-type system. Fine for casual users, but I anticipate a lot of more experienced users to tire of it very quickly.

Way to go, Ubuntu. Guess I'll have to get used to Debian.
 

Re:"Preview" but no screenshots? (1)

c (8461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419998)

> I'm sorry, how is this possibly a "preview"
> when there is not one screen shot?

I'm still fuzzy on how you can call it a preview when it's been in a standard distro for a good month or so. I've been using it daily for a while, and aside from the lack of auto-hide I'm not seeing much to complain about...

Re:"Preview" but no screenshots? (3, Funny)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420708)

I dunno, in the article those screenshots seem pretty well hidden to me. Seems like auto-hide might be working a little bit too efficiently! :p

Re:"Preview" but no screenshots? (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420876)

It's a preview, as in, what happens before you get to view it.

This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419876)

They make big sweeping changes to a new technology that is not well tested or even finished, ala PulseAudio. It's for this reason it's always felt buggy to me. I honestly don't get the global appeal, Fedora is cutting edge and stable and just as easy to use, while something like Madrive is stable and easy to use. I guess the free CD promo really paid off.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419966)

The problem with PulseAudio is not that it wasn't finished or well tested, the problem is the implementation sucks (ie. bad programmers wrote it).

I have never understood why they didn't just go back to OSS. OSS has made extensive improvements in the latest versions and can do everything ALSA/PulseAudio/whatever can do plus a lot more. On top of that everything works with OSS because it's the original Linux sound API.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (1, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420028)

The problem with PulseAudio is not that it wasn't finished or well tested, the problem is the implementation sucks (ie. bad programmers wrote it).

I can see why you didn't log in to post that.

Pulseaudio works fine in Ubuntu if you follow the Pulseaudio PerfectSetup guide. What I find particularly confusing is why the Ubuntu maintainers didn't seem to be capable of doing this. It's gotten closer to PerfectSetup since they started using Pulseaudio but it's still not there.

On top of that everything works with OSS because it's the original Linux sound API.

Unless, of course, it's been developed since ALSA gained dominance, in which case the OSS support might be poor or nonexistent.

Please log in so modding you down can become meaningful.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420274)

Another problem with pulseaudio is that I don't want it. Has pulseaudio been fixed to adjust my attitude yet? It fucks with everything else it can get its hands on. Or perhaps it should be fixed so it's not visible in the list of processes, then I won't know that it's running - problem solved.

Wake up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420518)

Pulseaudio has a piss-poor implementation. To this date I've not found one (not a single one!) hardware setup where it worked as well as Alsa or OSS.

Sound quality is crap. Hardware capable of more than two channels (for instance subwoofers, also in laptops) gets more or less permanently ruined, so even other OS'es can't get it right anymore.

The developers need to be ashamed of letting it out in the wild. Ubuntu needs to be ashamed for including it as default.

Man, the hours upon hours I've lost on Pulseaudio. Insanity. You defending it would be hilarious if it wasn't so utter tragic.

Re:Wake up (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420666)

Pulseaudio has a piss-poor implementation. To this date I've not found one (not a single one!) hardware setup where it worked as well as Alsa or OSS.

Worked better than ALSA, at least, on my Compaq nw9440 laptop with snd-hda-intel, for which neither ALSA dmix nor the built-in mixing would properly function.

Sound quality is crap. Hardware capable of more than two channels (for instance subwoofers, also in laptops) gets more or less permanently ruined,

Not for me, but whatever.

Man, the hours upon hours I've lost on Pulseaudio. Insanity. You defending it would be hilarious if it wasn't so utter tragic.

I'm not really defending pulseaudio so much (I'd prefer we could all go back to OSS which would solve all of these problems to everyone's satisfaction) as indicting Ubuntu over pulseaudio. If you look at PerfectSetup and compare it to various Ubuntu releases you can see that they didn't even fucking read it before configuring stuff in a fit of "I'm smarter than anyone else so I'll figure it out from the manpages and sources".

You what? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419990)

Ubuntu has stability problems?

Re:You what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420160)

Umm... yes? Pretty serious ones. Pulseaudio debacle, memory leaks, having it boot into text mode because the graphics driver got clobbered with a normal package update, and more.

I use it, but i'm considering moving to another distro. I like the *idea* of Ubuntu, but the execution leaves much to be desired.

Re:You what? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420426)

Been using Ubuntu for about 4 years now and I'm wondering if you are referring to the development branch or the LTS releases... because I have not had problems with memory leaks or video card drivers getting "clobbered."

Re:You what? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420548)

I gave up on Ubuntu when I switched to a bluetooth keyboard and found I couldn't log in without plugging in a second keyboard. I would've given them a pass on that if bluetooth were a new technology, but that was well within the last year.

I expect this sort of thing out of developer previews or on an unstable release, but for that to behave in that manner on a full release is asking a bit much. Likewise I think that it's foolhardy to decide to switch to Waypoint when it isn't completed yet. A better idea for a mainstream distro would be to wait until it firms up before making a decision. Sure it could be great, but do we really need another case where somebody found some cool technology then blindly integrated it only to find that it didn't live up to the hype?

Re:You what? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420566)

Apparently you have never tried any other Linux distribution. Ubuntu is by far the least buggy one there is. It's still extremely buggy, but no more so than Windows or OS X.

Re:You what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420414)

Yeah, it's the Windows 95 of the Linux world.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419996)

Yup, Ubuntu has always been buggy for me, on several machines.
I prefer Mepis, still Debian based, but Waren Woodford prizes stability.

And this means not releasing a new version every 6 months. Mepis releases when they are ready, like Debian itself.

The new Mepis 11 alpha is as stable as Ubuntu Betas, and Warrens betas are more stable than Ubuntu releases!

-Jay

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (2)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420016)

Fedora and Ubuntu appeal to two completely different crowds.

Ubuntu is for those who want everything to work, even if not perfectly. They include proprietary drivers strait off their install discs for the purpose of making all hardware within your computer work on first boot. Ubuntu and Debian take a lot of pride in Apt as well, as a way to reduce the pain of dependency tracking for your normal users who just want to get Cinelerra or other useful linux apps that are rarely ever included running.

Fedora is for those who really enjoy tinkering, who want to be bleeding-edge. A lot of time, the non-standard apps won't run without some significant tweaking, and even Redhat says that you will need to recompile the kernel to avoid some hard limits on Disk I/O, however they make doing all of these tasks very easy, because they maintain very large repos and provide you with your development tools strait off the disk.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420058)

They make big sweeping changes to a new technology that is not well tested or even finished, ala PulseAudio.

To be fair, new technology rarely gets well tested or even finished if no-one is using it.

Pulseaudio has been a disaster though. Every new Ubuntu release seems to fix some sound problems and introduce others (e.g. going from 9.10 to 10.04 stopped the button sounds working in xbmc on my HTPC).

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420078)

Me too... I think they need a staged release cycle. The development versions are to fluid for most people to actually use, so testing really begins on release. Then they find all the missing features people use, and the stability issues with pulse audio and id games, and so on... Been on the rollercoster since Breezy. I think they went bi-polar after Gutsy.

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420394)

ala PulseAudio? You mean that Red Hat project by a Red Hat developer?

Re:This is why Ubuntu has stability problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420670)

See also Upstart. Hey, let's replace the entire well-understood SysV init structure with a complicated event-driven system that has virtually no publicly-comprehensible documentation. Good idea, lots of potential, but horrible execution if you actually want people to be able to use it.

Rehashing a rehash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34419890)

I read over the article (I know, I know), and there doesn't seem to be anything new here. It's just a retelling of the same information we got a few months ago, where's the new info?

Too simple? (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419900)

probably too simple for nuts and bolts types.

If it has text-based configuration files and access to a command line, that's good enough for tinkering.

Re:Too simple? (1)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420192)

That's right. And don't forget that people have been complaining for ages about regular gnome being too simple (as in "lacks configuration options") as well.

Re:Too simple? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420482)

Yeah, but the alternative to that was KDE... you could spend days in the configuration screens trying to figure out what color you wanted the right border of a single button. (I exaggerate, but that's how it felt to me.)

Re:Too simple? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420358)

Yeah I don't like the idea of oversimplification, but so far I haven't seen a GUI so simple that it really gets in my way (not counting the anachronistic single-tasking behavior in iOS...a single-tasking GUI didn't bother me in PalmOS, but I expect proper multitasking in any modern OS...the hardware is MUCH more powerful now).

Fedora, here I come... (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419940)

This might be the beginning of the end for Ubuntu as everyone leaves in droves for a more traditional and stable distribution.

Re:Fedora, here I come... (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34419980)

Not so fast...FTA

That's changing now. Fedora, Red Hat's community Linux, is joining Ubuntu in switching its graphics stack. Others may soon follow.

Re:Fedora, here I come... (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420254)

This makes me cringe, Ubuntu is joining Fedora, not the other way around.

Re:Fedora, here I come... (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420116)

Debian is a logical choice... I am seeing more Ubuntu users going to Debian every year.

Re:Fedora, here I come... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420662)

I'm looking at switching to Debian once it requires more work to make Ubuntu power-user-friendly than to modify Debian to match Ubuntu's functionality.

The other day I upgraded my laptop because K3b doesn't work on Karmic. On Lucid, K3b worked and the wireless worked without the backported kernel modules, but now the backlight control was broken |:-|

I had to change the default GRUB2 boot parameters to include "acpi_backlight=vendor"

Now if only my laptop's webcam could be right-side-up it would be flawless...too bad they removed the flip capability in v4l2. There are some source code patches floating around to do it, I might have to resort to that...

Let me get this straight... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420008)

...shifting to brand new, undeveloped technology will produce a product that isn't entirely stable on the first release, but it should get more stable with time?

What would I do without such genius insight? Instead of generalizations, how about you dig into the meat of how it will affect users day to day in the normal workflow of them using their computers?

In other words (4, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420010)

They are duplicating the KDE 4.0 roll out plan?? *ducks*

Great, so what does it look like? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420030)

Interface? Bueller? Anyone?

images ? screenshots ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420032)

a preview without images ? sorry, but this article is a bit useless :-/

Where is the _real_ information ?

Re:images ? screenshots ? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420544)

Yeah what's the conventional slashdot tag for this?

"uselesswithoutpics"?

Re:images ? screenshots ? (2)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420772)

I have both.

Shameless blog punt here but look at the links below:

http://g33q.co.za/2010/10/26/using-unity-another-7-day-challenge/ [g33q.co.za] (An introduction to me using unity for seven days as my only work environment.)

I also show you how to create a custom skin for Unity.

And here is an older article where I take a preview look at Unity back in May already: http://g33q.co.za/2010/05/12/preview-ubuntu-unity/ [g33q.co.za]

Have fun!

Ubuntu, where's my 10 second boot? (3, Interesting)

Jason Quinn (1281884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420230)

Ubuntu was working towards a so-called "10 second" boot. What happened to that? They give up? *MAYBE*, if I'm in a generous mood, they quickened boot by 30'ish percent during their efforts. But it still takes like 40'ish second or more until a usable desktop. That's a long way off from their stated goal. People seem to have forgotten about this.

Re:Ubuntu, where's my 10 second boot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420400)

The 10 second boot comes free with supplied SSD.

dumb it down, dumb it down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420246)

Why must we keep dumbing down so many Linux distros? We already have other OSs like that.

Gnome kept getting simplified, but that wasn't enough... now we're going to pick an even more simplified thing? What's with this line of thinking? I'm afraid the chaos caused by the switch is going to take that 1% Linux desktop penetration and turn it into a whopping 0.5%. It's going to alienate the very non-techie users they're trying to woo.

OK, there is still KDE which isn't so dumbed down, but that isn't the main focus of most distros and feels more and more like the red headed stepchild desktop env.

I'm not even going to bother reading the article (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420266)

So far every quasi-mainstream article about "the future of Ubuntu" has been far off base and simply leads to people who know nothing debating with people who know little. I'll wait for Ubuntu/Canonical to announce things thanks.

Re:I'm not even going to bother reading the articl (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420592)

With such gems in TFA as

By focusing on Unity (on Wayland or X) for Ubuntu, Canonical has essentially forked its own Linux distribution.

you arent missing much (what does that even mean???? They cant "fork" their own distro...).

Re:I'm not even going to bother reading the articl (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420866)

With such gems in TFA as

By focusing on Unity (on Wayland or X) for Ubuntu, Canonical has essentially forked its own Linux distribution.

you arent missing much (what does that even mean???? They cant "fork" their own distro...).

Perhaps the author typed "borked" and the editor "corrected" it.

Goodbye Ubuntu (2)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420280)

Best of luck. Promoting Linux on the desktop is good, but I'm tired of broken packages pushed out as stable (latest kate in Ubuntu locks up on file open) and I highly value graphical network transparency. It's back to Debian for me.

Re:Goodbye Ubuntu (2)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420728)

I hate having to wait 6+ months (or 2 years if you stick with LTS) to get app upgrades, so I switched to OS X for my laptop years ago. Still use Linux on servers though.

As for network transparency, Wayland is supposed to have that... it just won't be the antiquated kind of of networking that X11 does: Slow on the Internet without a clumsy add-on like NX, and no ability for more than one user to view a window at the same time without using VNC which is also antiquated and often too slow.

Re:Goodbye Ubuntu (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420796)

Have fun. We'll see you again pretty soon when Debian (and virtually all the other distros) switch to Wayland a year or two after Ubuntu rolls it out.

Unity Namespace Collision! (5, Interesting)

fpgaprogrammer (1086859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420294)

The Unity namespace is already occupied by http://www.unity3d.com/ [unity3d.com] a great game engine for iOS and android and support multitouch and so on. Canonical is just going to make it a PITA for one or both sets of developers searching for "unity opengl" "unity GUI" "unity multitouch" "unity android."

Re:Unity Namespace Collision! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420446)

I second this annoyance!! mod parent up - Ubuntu people should really be aware of this

Re:Unity Namespace Collision! (1)

mikaelwbergene (1944966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420904)

Thirded.

I was wondering why Ubuntu wanted a 3d interface

Unity on Unity with Unity (3, Funny)

BennyB2k4 (799512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420632)

So if I use this unity 3d engine on ubuntu unity using VMware unity, do I get a trilogy?

Re:Unity Namespace Collision! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420860)

Unity also used to be a networking middleware in Java, until it got renamed because of Unity-3D.

Unity, unity, unity, geez, these developers certainly have one mind and no imagination. :P

It's the Apps stupid. (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420408)

Are there any Wayland native apps yet? Without those, all you have is a pretty interface and nothing to do with it. Sure, you can provide backwards compatibility by running an X server on top of Wayland, but then what was the point of dumping X.org?

The X11R6 protocol has been around for a long time, because it's good at what it does. By dumping the X protocol along with the X.org server they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:It's the Apps stupid. (5, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420834)

Apps usually don't talk directly to X11. The GUI toolkit does. If Ubuntu can get QT and GTK+ ported to Wayland (which has already been underway for a while) then most apps are merely a recompile (plus some minor tweaking) away from being native Wayland apps. Kinda like how many GTK+ or QT apps have fully functional windows versions because those toolkits were ported to Windows.

Re:It's the Apps stupid. (1)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420918)

I believe Gtk and Qt have semi-working ports on Wayland. So any application that uses Gtk or Qt (which is a lot) would work on Wayland natively. Any old application that goes straight to X11 would require a bit more work, but Wayland can "embed" X11 into it kind of like how X11 works on OS X.

TFA nailed it. (0)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420410)

I went there looking for a horrible car analogy and they delivered.

co3k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34420506)

TO GET INVOLVED IN TOWELS ON THE FLLOR use8s. This is Spot when done For FORMED HIS OWN disturbing. If you

Its a different OS at that point (0)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420552)

They should rename it, and I don't mean a variation on Ubuntu like Kubuntu.

Goodbye, Ubuntu... (0)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34420626)

Abandoning Gnome, replacing it with some cell phone type interface and on top of it dropping X???? Whoever runs the Ubuntu project needs their head checked.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?