Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 17.04 review

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used KDE until they released that godawful Plasma desktop. Don't get me wrong, it looks absolutely BEAUTIFUL, but it crashes constantly, and it is a crapshoot on whether or not it will actually even BOOT within a virtual machine.

Yes - it's very annoying. There seems to some strange interaction with Oracle Java that it just can't handle. The KDE bug reporting process is completely broken. You need an account on their system just to report a problem. I suspect that a large number of problems are never reported because the process of documenting them is just too difficult for most users. There is no automated crash reporting at all. As far as I…

It's nothing new: Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers.

Or if you want to see a funny image, click this link: https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

If you're easily offended, google instead for "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers".

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

xfce (Xubuntu) hasn't unexpectedly changed on me in about 10 years. YMMV but I haven't been surprised once and haven't seen any features in other DEs I wish it had.

Agreed. Except for that horrible screen tearing.

The git version of Xfwm4 fixes this.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#43
post #2

If you want to get a head start on the future of Ubuntu, check out Ubuntu GNOME[1]. It's an official distribution of Ubuntu and where it's heading. [1]: https://ubuntugnome.org/

Is this different from what you get by installing gnome-shell via apt?

In my experience, installing gnome-shell (or ubuntu-gnome-desktop) over a working Ubuntu installation can be dicey. For example, If you install both side-by-side the Unity theme can get a bit screwy, and the desktop-background just renders as a black rectangle.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#44

I never understood why Canonical's attempts to be "brave" (as Apple would call it) result in Canonical pulling out, while attempts by other companies like Apple don't. For example, Canonical made a very brave decision to switch to Unity, and now they're having to move away from Unity, which hints that there were enough users against it, and they pushed Canonical into this position (along with Canonical trying to allo…

For most Mac users, the only OS option is OS X.

(Yes, you CAN run Linux on a Mac... but the experience isn't great. As far as I know, Linux still doesn't have support for suspend/hibernate when you close your MacBook Pro's cover. And although the Macs have the nicest touchpads, it seems weird to pay a 50% "Apple tax" if you're not even using Apple's OS. You lose half the benefits that Mac people buy into. So if you're a Linux person, then you might as well be using a PC.)

Since most Apple customer's are using Apple's OS, when they don't like a change, their options are:

(1) to switch to PC's, or

(2) to hold off on upgrades, but eventually get on board with the changes begrudgingly.

I've been seeing more #1's lately, but most fall into the #2 category.

In the Linux world, however, there are hundreds of distro alternatives. And half of them are Ubuntu-based, anyway. Don't like the UI/UX choices that stock Ubuntu is shoving down your throat? In an hour you can switch to Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, or even Mint... and still retain compatibility with the same APT sources. Don't like systemd, or something else deeper under the covers? Then it's a little more effort to switch to a completely different distro family, but not MUCH effort.

Open-source Linux distros just don't have the lock-in leverage to muscle their users around the way that propriety OS's do. By design.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#45
post #3

> While speed may be the single most important element of a UI, there is plenty about GNOME that is going to disappoint Unity users. The biggest gripe I have is keyboard shortcuts. Unity had them in spades. For as graphical as Unity is/was, it was also very easy to drive without taking your hands off the keyboard. GNOME lacks that level of shortcuts. Can we please fix this before the convergence? Muscle memory and Li…

Relatedly: making "safe" keybinding choices as an application developer has been a problem for a long time. Especially when compiz was the new hotness, many application shortcuts needed to be rebound by the end user, because the authors had chosen ones that were now in conflict, especially ones involving Ctrl and Alt together.

Before that, Mozilla had gone through something with the Mozilla Suite, where seemingly every contributor wanted to ship their new feature with a keybinding for it, which meant there was an internal friction. But product leads and code reviewers were also burdened with respecting platform conventions, too. Eventually, there came a separate approval process for any proposed shortcut, with specific people tasked with managing allocations (and reclaiming past ones—this project management approach is what eventually led to Firefox).

The headache persists, because there tends to be no pattern for the assignment of shortcuts. When Unity was introduced, I'd hoped that they'd seize the opportunity of a clean break to reconcile problem, but that didn't happen.

Here is the scheme I've adopted:

1. If we pull back our scope a bit from the application, then operations on the window itself are performed with Super. (It helps that this key usually has Windows iconography on it).

2. Finally, if we pull all the way back, operations to be handled by the environment/desktop/graphical shell/what-have-you are performed with Alt+Super.

The implication of 1 is that to move a window around without having to drag its title bar, you'd use Super along with a mousedown anywhere in the window, rather than Alt+mousedown. It also means that the shortcut to close the current window is not Alt+F4, but instead it can be remapped to Super+F4. Same goes with Alt+Tab, which becomes Super+Tab. This is jarring at first and perhaps controversial. But even when I wanted to abandon my own scheme because of how bothersome this stuff felt at first, I found that after one day of use, I had become accustomed to it. So switching is really not as bothersome as kneejerk might have you believe.

Flipping between virtual desktops is Alt+Super+arrow rather than Ctrl+Alt+arrow (or other combinations that might be in use) and revealing the desktop by hiding all windows is Alt+Super+D. I have global launchers set up like this, too. E.g., Alt+Super+T brings up a new GNOME Terminal window.

What this means is that any combination of Ctrl or Alt or Ctrl+Alt (along with Ctrl+Shift, Alt+Shift, and Ctrl+Alt+Shift) in the keybindspace are reserved for use by the application. Go wild.

I put this scheme into place once whenever I buy a new machine or otherwise do a new system install, and then never have to worry about it again. The important thing to note that it entirely comes down to remapping the default "global" shortcuts so that the desktop/WM is not stomping on the application keybindspace. This is very easy—it doesn't involve trawling through dozens of apps' settings panels or config files so they comply; you remap the "global" desktop/WM shortcuts and you're done.

The result of adopting a scheme like this is zero conflicts, ever, and you end up feeling like you have more space. It might sound so cumbersome as to be unworkable, but don't underestimate the advantages of what a clean break, once-and-for-all decision like this brings around.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#46
Canonical/Ubuntu has practically stopped innovating for the desktop. There are a few ideas which need a big player, but nobody steps up.

1. Copy update-in-the-background from Chrome OS/Android. If you want to actually improve it, try to provide an undo button (which will never work 100% though). Either use two partitions or disk snapshots for the background system. Do the wake-up-at-night-for-update trick of Android.

2. Turn the snap package system into a real app store. The https://uappexplorer.com/apps is not user friendly. There might even be money in here.

3. Better hardware support. Hopefully they will use Nexus-of-Ubuntu idea from the AskHN thread. http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2017/04/thank-you-note-to-hac...

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#47

As someone who uses Ubuntu on both desktop and server here are my concerns about Ubuntu and Canonical at this stage. I think Ubuntu is awesome and has done huge things for Linux, particularly on the desktop. A) Canonical's R&D investment is shifting from desktop components to server components. On the one hand I'm sure the server version will get even better which is great. But it's hard to imagine how this could tra…

I believe that the reason that Ubuntu is winning the server market is because it won the desktop market. Ubuntu is on most production servers because devs are more familiar with Ubuntu than alternatives since they use Ubuntu on their desktop. That's certainly the reason why I use Ubuntu or Debian on all the production servers I've spun up.

I'm sure Ubuntu is well aware of this issue, and of course they're also dog-fooding Ubuntu Desktop, so while progress may slow, I highly doubt it will stop.

In fact it might just speed up, since for the last few years they've been focusing their efforts on Unity 8. Now even though they'll be spending less resources on the desktop, the resources they do spend won't be disappearing into an unreleased project like Mir & Unity 8.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#48

I never understood why Canonical's attempts to be "brave" (as Apple would call it) result in Canonical pulling out, while attempts by other companies like Apple don't. For example, Canonical made a very brave decision to switch to Unity, and now they're having to move away from Unity, which hints that there were enough users against it, and they pushed Canonical into this position (along with Canonical trying to allo…

Apple is in dominant market position.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#49

I never understood why Canonical's attempts to be "brave" (as Apple would call it) result in Canonical pulling out, while attempts by other companies like Apple don't. For example, Canonical made a very brave decision to switch to Unity, and now they're having to move away from Unity, which hints that there were enough users against it, and they pushed Canonical into this position (along with Canonical trying to allo…

> which hints that there were enough users against it I'm pretty sure those users are a vocal minority. Personally I loved Unity. The only thing I disliked about Unity and Ubuntu's UI in general is the lack of configuration options, having to install extra buggy configuration managers to do really basic stuff, like turning Caps Lock into Ctrl. But that's a problem with the whole Gnome ecosystem and not Unity. And Uni…

Going back to why Canonical dropped it, I'm pretty sure that's because they are giving up on the Linux desktop in general.

Indeed, Canonical had the same realization as Red Hat ~2000-2003: there is no money in the Linux desktop, there is a lot of money in enterprise services and support.

Since Canonical has to make a profit, it is smart of them to drop unprofitable projects such as the phone.

Re: Ubuntu 17.04 review

#50

I never understood why Canonical's attempts to be "brave" (as Apple would call it) result in Canonical pulling out, while attempts by other companies like Apple don't. For example, Canonical made a very brave decision to switch to Unity, and now they're having to move away from Unity, which hints that there were enough users against it, and they pushed Canonical into this position (along with Canonical trying to allo…

Apple's user base is one that wants Apple to do all their thinking for them as far as computer decisions are concerned. Often this may lead to sub optimal solutions for them, but they are ok with this because the overall lack of worry with Apple products, and the fact that they have a good track record of making good decisions, still leaves them ahead in the net (this may be changing with pro Macs though).

Linux users, OTOH, have an opinion on everything. Worse, a vocal minority is simply anti anything that is popular, which means Ubuntu's goals were entirely in conflict with this segment of their base.

Post reply on HN