On Tuesday, 26 October, 2010 04:03 PM, Allan E. Registos wrote: > >> 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. > :: My question is, why Unity? Why not gnome3? Other than the fact that it is not yet "released" quality… Unity is good for netbooks, that I'm full support.
:: But regardless, I'm not against Unity-desktop as default. My concern is coming from the marketing/sales side of it. We geeks can install Unity easily, the non-geeks, as I've said, doesn't think the way you and I think. And then the question, is it time? Couldn't it have waited until 11.10 or after the next LTS? :: Oh, and since you're a team member :p My gripe with Unity (as out-of-the-box) is a locked panel. I'm sure it will be unlocked for the desktop? Or not? (Again for netbooks it is understandable…) >> 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. :: Not sure about that, I didn't even know there were new ones again. I actually care less about the attacks on Canonical. Canonical is there and it is for the good of the Ubuntu product, so let them attack Canonical all they want, sooner or later they will see the value of Canonical being there at the back and at the top of Ubuntu. :: Also, I don't quite got the idea about Canonical being a mere "packaing" company. What was that all about? :: My analysis is not related in any way whatsoever with those "attacks" and "views". And I am only coming from the marketing/sales side of it. >> 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). :: Meh, I did not say it was anybody's fault, and not even talking about whose fault it was ^_^ I was in fact in favor of Ubuntu there, re-positioning Ubuntu from being just another distro with a Linux OS to being "the Ubuntu" or should I say, "the OS". >> 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. :: One day. And for that one day to arrive, our net connection quality and reliability should be at par with our northern neighbors. :) > 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. :: I hope so. And that "transition" period will be a very long one. Our own country alone is far from being ready to go web-based, and even more far to go cloud-based. :: I don't know. And I'm sorry. I just see things from a different perspective. I like Ubuntu, no, I _love_ Ubuntu more than any other distros out there, so if possible, like in this case now, I detach myself from it and see it objectively, and from a wider perspective. And since I don't know the bigger picture that Canonical sees in its mind, my only option is to analyze it based on what I have and know. I may be wrong, I may be right. :: And since I want people to use Linux or GNU/Linux, FLOSS/FOSS in general too, I am happy that Canonical was born so it can guide Ubuntu. For me, Ubuntu is the gateway to Linux. Maybe what I am trying to say is, it could have been gradual or a two-step process. We are changing the competition here. We are changing the "desktop" layout itself, what people see, what people are accustomed to. :: It gets harder and longer to explain things to Ubuntu newbies and tryouts. I already got 4 (insignificant, I know) who told me re: Unity "I don't want that, I want my desktop". And so here I go explaining what a "desktop" is, which of course these people doesn't understand because their brains are not wired like yours and mine. :: Now it is easier if I'm present, I can switch it, voila. But online? Like today, I am talking and so far convinced two people to download Ubuntu and test it out, just try it. And these two are doing it not for themselves but for their parents who are much more _not_ technologically wired. I can't even bein to imagine how they would have reacted if the desktop that they will see is something else that they are not accustomed to. :: Install this and that? They'll delete Ubuntu faster than I could have teach them how to switch desktops. Sure thing, 1, 2, 10? Insignificant numbers. But as we all know, insignificant numbers makes the best convincer. :: Is everyone getting what the other side of the fence is all about? That's where I am coming from. I have nothing against Canonical or Ubuntu, I am simply sharing my analysis, and experience. From where we are (we, as in my friends who are with me in convincing people to migrate, not my friends who care less convincing others), the story is different. :: Unity it is, it's a done deal, and as I've said, geeks know how to find solutions so not a problem at all to me. But I am concerned for the average user. Anyway, at least I shared something from our perspective and from the perspective of the people we're marketing Ubuntu to. What I shared is not even half of it. Talk about re-convincing people to try Ubuntu again, that's a whole different story. :: But please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for Canonical, I'm all for Ubuntu, and this "Unity-desktop as default" decision will not stop me from convincing people to switch to Linux via Ubuntu (I rarely offer Kubuntu as an option). It won't even slow me down.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-ph mailing list ubuntu-ph@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph
