A Disturbing Dialog About Ubuntu and Unity

Ubuntu / Linux has far bigger problems than Unity. (Jump to point 5 for conclusion).

1. There are huge regressions.

With the upgrade to 11.10 my laptop's battery life has been cut from 5-6 hours to 2-2.5 hours. This is on an Asus UL machine that on Windows gets 10 hours.

This may be a kernel issue, but Canonical could add a lot of value by at least warning, or better, fixing/minimizing the problem. There are all kinds of boot parameter hacks, etc. to try to fix this, but it requires a lot of reboots and fiddling with internals. How about including a script to optimize these settings that is run after the upgrade?

"Linux on the desktop" is a dangerous misnomer, because on desktop computers power is not a concern. But nowadays power consumption is almost everything. Canonical already has its sights set on mobile devices, but hasn't even addressed power consumption for notebooks properly.

2. Poor communication of core functionality changes

New additions are presented and lauded in glossy detail, but removed features are not as clearly presented.

Nautilus (file manager) used to allow drag and drop copying/moving of files onto the left pane "bookmarks" folders. This was simply removed without warning, crippling quick drag and drop filing. Once again, this is "upstream", because of the Gnome/Nautilus teams' decisions, but it affects users in a noticeable way.

The initial update to Unity (11.04) removed all gnome applets, and made the time tracking software I used to use inaccessible. The upgrade to 11.10 made me lose my skype app/status indicator.

I don't care if my dock is on the left or bottom, or my open-close buttons are on the left or the right. Most of Unity's "coolness" is Compiz anyway - zoom, desktop switching, etc., so all that was available before Unity. For launching applications, gnome-do is still much faster, light-weight, and flexible (e.g. allowing creating/opening individual tomboy notes).

By communicating feature additions and subtractions better, people won't be so negatively surprised. Set proper expectations.

3. Key consumer software weaknesses

No good media creation suite. I was trying to make a photo slide show with a soundtrack a while ago, and I went through two days of installing/testing, setting up ppa's, compiling sources, etc. to get the latest versions, and nothing really works well. I mostly code, write, and use the web, so it's not mission-critical for me, but for a "consumer desktop OS", the absence of an official and well-functioning suite of applications akin to Apple's music and movie makers is a weakness.

Other apps like Evernote and a more up-to-date Skype would be nice as well.

4. What hardware does it run on flawlessly?

When you buy a computer with Windows or OS X, you know that everything will work. With Ubuntu/Linux, you don't. It's a huge stress factor before buying a new computer. Ubuntu has "certified hardware", but it's buried on some wiki page or other back page. This information should be front and center on the home page, so that I can buy something with confidence that it just works.

5. Conclusion

Ubuntu (whether Unity or Gnome) is far more usable than Windows (messy config menus, no multiple desktops, no full-screen desktop zoom, inconsistent shortcuts, etc.), and at least as good as OS X (which for example doesn't allow you to change the system's font size globally, and is less keyboard navigation friendly).

I'm considering abandoning Ubuntu again, because it can't compete on power consumption.

I am sympathetic to Canonical being annoyed by the bitchy entitlement complaints over superficial UI features (e.g., open/close buttons left or right). It's bike-shedding to the max.

That said, I think better up-front communication of changes can help set expectations. It forces the designers to reason why they are removing/changing/adding something. This doesn't have to lead to drawn out discussions, but some design decisions seem to be "shot from the hip" without realizing that they may affect/ruin thousands of people's work flow.

Lastly, there are huge issues like power consumption and predictable hardware compatibility that currently heavily weigh against Ubuntu/Linux.

But authority only works if you use that authority to do the right thing. Unity isn't doing that. I am in part frustrated that Unity got _worse_ with the latest Ubuntu release, and I'm frustrated that it has lots of bugs, and the interface is neither traditional nor discoverable. But even worse than these problems is the problem that Unity isn't pursuing a worthy goal. It's a rethinking of how you manage applications and files on the Linux desktop, but the Linux desktop has never been particularly functional or filled out and it falls behind further with time. The major trends we see is the desktop spiraling in on a single application, the browser, and files and media moving to the cloud. Unity is messing around with something that will never win the hearts and minds of new users, while it alienates what users there already are. I've never met someone who loves Unity! There's a couple people who accept it, and a much larger group that hates it. (Personally once I figured out to install gnome-shell I can like Ubuntu again, but Unity really did almost push me over the edge to get a Mac.)

It's not to say that a rethinking of the Linux UI is an entirely useless endevour, but Ubuntu and Canonical should not be pursuing a fantasy of a rich ecosystem of GUI apps. There are maybe a dozen relevant applications on Linux now, and that number will only get smaller. But the beauty of this is that if you just pursue an experience that encompasses those dozen applications, and you dive deep into those applications (which you can because they are all open source!) then something really neat could come out of that. I think people could get behind an idea like that, even if those same people simultaneously felt annoyed with particular changes that came from that. But it's hard to look past those problems when it feels like present usability is being compromised for a misguided fantasy.

Firefox is a good example. I have used it since "Phoenix 0.1" came out. Already during "Firebird" times, users have started to complain that it is getting slower and bigger. Mozilla ignored it. It needed Google's Chrome browser to ring the bells at Mozilla and show them that the user complaints were valid after all.

Compare that with well managed projects like the Linux kernel. There its usually the BDFL who does the wake up calls, after having listened to user complaints and suggestions. Not saying that everything is perfect, but the kernel has been hugely successful for 25+ years and is still well focused.

Ubuntu OTOH has completely lost its original focus of providing an easy desktop Linux. They started pushing server versions and now suddenly smartphones. As if the desktop would disappear in the next years.