Ubuntu's "risky step" of standardizing on Unity instead of GNOME
Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog
OK, it's finally happening. For a couple of years, the standard for desktops has been edging towards mobile devices with every new netbook interface. Now, with Ubuntu's decision to replace GNOME with its own Unity desktop, the shift away from the workstation standard has actually arrived.
But while the decision may be in keeping with the times, it's still every bit the "risky step" that Mark Shuttleworth described it as when he made the announcement earlier this week.
In making the announcement, Shuttleworth focused on technical issues. The GNOME project, he said, had made some design decisons that were not in keeping with what Ubuntu wanted to do. He also mentioned the greater ease of supporting one desktop, rather than two.
These comments have been duly reported. But what has not widely discussed are the implications of the decisions for Ubuntu's future growth and its relationship with the larger free software community.
The risk begins with the fact that Unity is still very much a work in progress. The current version of Unity has elements that need to be standardized, and is designed with assumptions about how the desktop is used that hold true for only some users.
No doubt Unity will improve by the time it becomes Ubuntu's default desktop, but a poll on the Ubuntu forums whose results are roughly equally divided between Unity, the forthcoming GNOME Shell, and "Anything that works" suggests that, even with improvements, Unity will have to struggle for acceptance.
Jockeying for market advantages
As the reception of KDE 4.0 and the lukewarm enthusiasm for the GNOME Shell demonstrate, any major interface change may meet with resistance. There seems no reason to think Unity will be an exception. For this reason,you can safely assume that Ubuntu and Canonical, its commercial arm, have some compelling reasons (read: business reasons) to take the risk in the first place.
Perhaps, as some pundits have suggested, the somewhat minimalist Unity is intended for the promised future of cloud computing, in which the desktop is just the launcher for the browser. The only trouble with that, however, is that one innovation rarely replaces older ones completely; cloud computing is likely to continue to grow, but it is likely to co-exist with traditional computing for some years.
Similarly, if the distro is willing to risk annoying existing users -- users who have already endured a barrage of changes in the sometimes dubious name of usability -- then perhaps another calculation is that Unity will appeal to the new users whom Shuttleworth expects to be flocking to Ubuntu in the next five years. But will those users, most of whom will have experience with Windows or OS X, appreciate Unity's ease of use, or regard it as a step down from what they are used to?
Probably the most compelling reason is ease of maintenance as Canonical and Ubuntu expand. Not only is one desktop easier to maintain than two on a workstation or netbook, as Shuttleworth suggests, but it is far easier to maintain on tablets and mobile devices, too -- assuming that Canonical should ever expand into them.
KDE has already shown a realization of this simple truth with Plasma Netbook, which uses most of the same code as standard KDE except for the desktop shell. However, perhaps Ubuntu's plan is to take the approach one step further, and make the code completely identical across all hardward platforms. If so, then the increased coding and testing efficiency is self-evident.
Yet the nagging question remains: Do users want or expect the same desktop everywhere? What may seem efficient on an eight centimeter phone screen can seem cramped and restrictive on a workstation.
Like Shuttleworth said, it's risky. Yet if Canonical is going to manage what no one else has ever managed to do and make a living from a distribution, some assumptions have to be made and some risks taken. What is interesting about Ubuntu standardizing on Unity is that the decision strongly suggests what assumptions Ubuntu is currently making.
Redefining relationships
Just as importantly, with the decision to focus on Unity, Ubuntu now has the usability issues upon which it is focusing completely under its control. This is a position that Ubuntu has been moving towards for several years now, as a review of Shuttleworth's blog reveals .
A few years ago, Shuttleworth was attempting to get the larger free software projects to coordinate release schedules -- a move that would have greatly aided commercial distributions like Ubuntu, but done little for most projects.
When that effort was greeted with only mild interest, Shuttleworth next attempted to rally free software around usability issues. That call to common interest aroused interest, but GNOME in particular moved more slowly and in different directions than Ubuntu. Consequently, Ubuntu began its own development, modifying such desktop elements as notifications and title bar buttons on its own, and introducing centralized indicators for social networking and sound.
These modifications of GNOME left Ubuntu in an anomalous position. With the release of GNOME 3.0, Ubuntu would have been faced with a choice of abandoning or overhauling its interface code, or of continuing to develop an offshoot of GNOME 2.0 -- either of which would have been embarrassing and harmful to its reputation. Now, by focusing on Unity, Ubuntu can announce its own new desktop at about the same time that GNOME 3.0 is released.
Just as importantly, with Unity, Ubuntu has control of its significant code. Not that Unity is not free software -- it is. But, practically speaking, its Ubuntu volunteers and Canonical employees are apt to be the majority its contributors. Both are more likely to accept Canonical's directives than outsiders. In this way, Ubuntu can continue to express its allegiance to free software while not having to manoeuver through the usual give and take found in the community. In effect, it can now make decisions more like a proprietary company can.
Waiting for the dice to fall
How successful Unity will become remains to be seen. Given Ubuntu's popularity, probably it cannot help but succeed to a large extent. That inevitability, more than anything else, may make the risks associated with Unity acceptable. Eight months from now, we will probably see distributions derived from Ubuntu happily using Unity, rather than the GNOME 2 or 3 series of releases.
Yet if Unity is unlikely to fail completely, it may not completely succeed, either. Instructions about how to switch from Unity to standard GNOME are sure to be widely available, and we may never have a sense of how many people use them. Perhaps, too, using Unity as default will increase the popularity of Kubuntu and Xubuntu, Ubuntu's in-family alternatives.
But these, too, are part of the risk: that, despite its name, Unity simply becomes another choice among the distinctly un-unified GNOME-based desktops available.
No matter how you interpret the gamble, it's not a small one, and seeing how it plays out promises to make 2011 an interesting year.
Comments
comments powered by DisqusSubscribe to our Linux Newsletters
Find Linux and Open Source Jobs
Subscribe to our ADMIN Newsletters
Support Our Work
Linux Magazine content is made possible with support from readers like you. Please consider contributing when you’ve found an article to be beneficial.
News
-
Armbian 24.11 Released with Expanded Hardware Support
If you've been waiting for Armbian to support OrangePi 5 Max and Radxa ROCK 5B+, the wait is over.
-
SUSE Renames Several Products for Better Name Recognition
SUSE has been a very powerful player in the European market, but it knows it must branch out to gain serious traction. Will a name change do the trick?
-
ESET Discovers New Linux Malware
WolfsBane is an all-in-one malware that has hit the Linux operating system and includes a dropper, a launcher, and a backdoor.
-
New Linux Kernel Patch Allows Forcing a CPU Mitigation
Even when CPU mitigations can consume precious CPU cycles, it might not be a bad idea to allow users to enable them, even if your machine isn't vulnerable.
-
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.5 Released
Notify your friends, loved ones, and colleagues that the latest version of RHEL is available with plenty of enhancements.
-
Linux Sees Massive Performance Increase from a Single Line of Code
With one line of code, Intel was able to increase the performance of the Linux kernel by 4,000 percent.
-
Fedora KDE Approved as an Official Spin
If you prefer the Plasma desktop environment and the Fedora distribution, you're in luck because there's now an official spin that is listed on the same level as the Fedora Workstation edition.
-
New Steam Client Ups the Ante for Linux
The latest release from Steam has some pretty cool tricks up its sleeve.
-
Gnome OS Transitioning Toward a General-Purpose Distro
If you're looking for the perfectly vanilla take on the Gnome desktop, Gnome OS might be for you.
-
Fedora 41 Released with New Features
If you're a Fedora fan or just looking for a Linux distribution to help you migrate from Windows, Fedora 41 might be just the ticket.
I'm ready
Canonical listens to its customers/users. When Linux starts getting a huge wave of games, don't let Gnomeor KDE take the credit, because they've done nothing to help the situation; thank Canonical for partnering with the right people.
Unity
I'm a simple end user of linux for many years, and I see Unity as a really simple and relaxing Desktop environment.
No complication, no useless features, just a launcher and a status bar, and if you don't find what you want just hit ubuntu and search for it.
Really I adore that philosophy.
I'm tired of computer interfaces getting more and more complex. This is a breath of fresh air.
Chapeau!
Dominic
Unity
goodbye ubuntu
i've loved my experience with ubuntu but knowing that it will be dead in the next few years has forced me to look else where for an OS fedora has it's quirks but it's proving to be a decent desktop OS ... Good bye Ubuntu
window manager freedom or desktop manager tyranny
Lucid looks good enough for me for a while :-) I will see if Unity works... 1-2 years from now.
its just a desktop
All of these desktops share the same basic design - none of them is radically different in any meaningful way. You can have the launcher at the top, left, right or bottom, and you can change the colours. Wow. Be still, beating heart. Fact is that hundreds of developers have been working on the various "desktops" for years, and they look much the same now as they did ten years ago.
What would be nice is if the desktop developers finished the desktops, and started work on something else that really matters - the applications.
Unity, Gnome, KDE and Xfce
KDE, I never used to like but I just tried it on the new Kubuntu and it is very nice.
I certainly like all the Compiz cube etc.., on Gnome but it is just look with no real added function.
Unity..., hhhmmm..., I like Ubuntu but prefer the older Gnome based desktop to the Unity. But it is only superficial and within some months I will probably adjust. Ubuntu Netbook addition works well on my EEEPC 701 but it would not on my Desktop.
Guess it comes down to what you like and how it fits on each type of device?
Variety id the spice of life after all.
What is Mark Doing?
I left Microsoft because Mr. Balmer was forcing us to use another os. This is when i discovered Ubuntu. Now Mark seems to be taking the lead from Microsoft. Forcing us to use a platform that more than 3/4 of its users have no need for or even want. Thankfully Linux is not ubuntu and i will be leaving this distro as i did with Microsoft. What does not make sense here is all the positive press over this on the net, I currently know 26 long time ubuntu users that are upset with Marks decision and will be leaving the distro as well. Its his money and his investment but i think he's had to many dinners with Obama and his dictatorship is wearing off.
ubuntu's risky new changes
ubuntu risky state
Isn't that what lots of people like my self been asking for years.
Well yes.
I have been asking for some sort of unification to the desk top & most of the apps.
To have all application to work to the same goal, is to make another stander, and that it has open code beneath it.
Would it not show the other communities, that working together really makes more since.
Then what most people do all the time witch is to complain a bought all the different Linux.
Witch is not to say, {that variety!! Is what we all look for in Linux}.
But it would make all of dose other close system bite there hands in embitterment.
Just to see Linux leap in to limelight even more a new stander of OS, and open to the public for development for all.
Just think Ubuntu was not the only Linux that was unified, but Slack, BSD, Arch, showing that it can be done.
At least 5 open source projects that are all working to make the processes better in the desk top, net tablet, and all those mobile devices, to work in sync with out the need for other software or devices.
Well there is Drop Box, but it only syncs devices that are sponsored.
That leaves a great deal of devices out of sync.
That can not be helped.
The competition for dose domains is to great.
But it would go a long way to show that Linux is an alternative.
In regards to unity is it risky.
Isn't that what lots of people like my self been asking for years.
Well yes.
I have been asking for some sort of unification to the desk top & most of the apps.
To have all application to work to the same goal, is to make another stander, and that it has open code beneath it.
Would it not show the other communities, that working together really makes more since.
Then what most people do all the time witch is to complain a bought all the different Linux.
Witch is not to say, {that variety!! Is what we all look for in Linux}.
But it would make all of dose other close system bite there hands in embitterment.
Just to see Linux leap in to limelight even more a new stander of OS, and open to the public for development for all.
Just think Ubuntu was not the only Linux that was unified, but Slack, BSD, Arch, showing that it can be done.
At least 5 open source projects that are all working to make the processes better in the desk top, net tablet, and all those mobile devices, to work in sync with out the need for other software or devices.
Well there is Drop Box, but it only syncs devices that are sponsored.
That leaves a great deal of devices out of sync.
That can not be helped.
The competition for dose domains is to great.
But it would go a long way to show that Linux is an alternative.
Usability
Unity needs to be more logical. ALL of the tasks that Ubuntu (and extras) accomplish now with GNOME must be just as easy or easier to accomplish in Unity.
Unity needs to be more attractive, more along the lines of what Ubuntu has done with GNOME.
Unity needs to be WAY more efficient with screen space. For those of us with higher resolution capacities, it's frustrating when a menu in Unity takes up half the screen just to look cool. I don't care about looking at the menu, I care about getting to the goodies it contains.
Unity needs to offer enough productivity tools to be attractive to power users. I like GNOME 3 because it lets you do things with virtual workspaces that are highly attractive. No longer does someone using Ubuntu studio need to spend ten minutes starting each application they need in each workspace they want it in. If we could, for example, view all workspaces simultaneously, click-and-drag applications from the menu to the workspace we want it to start in, and resize it inside of that workspace in Unity, all with intuitive and fast menus, I would switch over today.
I, for one, don't much like the whole "Unity" idea, but that opinion is subject to change without notice.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
None of the options are appealing
I plan on holding onto 10.04 until the next Long Term Support version of Ubuntu is released. At that point, we'll see which way I go. Fortunately, this is Linux, and changing distros is simple, given a little basic planning. If I can't restore the old-style interface (10.04 already has the buttons on the right side of the window titlebar where they belong), then perhaps it's time to move on. I don't *want* to move on, mind you. I have better things to do than play with the operating system. But mess with my workflow, and you leave me no choice.
Huh? Wha?
I use Linux far too much to bork my system on rpm conflicts, and to pray during updates. I switched to Ubuntu because I could FORGET about Linux while I use it. Which gets me to my point.
So I read this article, about 3 paragraphs into it i have to wonder what the HELL is Unity? So then I skim through the article clicking on links near "Unity" and none of THOSE explain what Unity is, either.
There's probably another reason I am caught off guard about desktop changes - people have stopped caring about the desktop. It is good enough and getting better. All the real exciting applications have moved to the web. You can do everything on the browser now except high-frames per second games, and even THAT is about to change with browsers supporting Canvas.
I guess I'll have to go Google and maybe I'll come back... but you really ought to put in a 1 paragraph recap.
Unity ... pffft...
It is risky either way
I personally, didn't like both of them, because the desktop aren't really "up to me", switch is one of the most impressive experience I have in Linux computing. But I feel less and less about that in the recent update with most of the Major Project, and Distro.