unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jim Rorie <jfrorie@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 17:31 +0200, Alex Lourie wrote:

>         
> 
> 
> Ok, hold on a second. How come the presence or absence of options in
> some
> quite experimental software DESTROYS moment of Linux Desktop??? I
> can't understand
> how is it that after so many work being put into the operating system,
> and specifically Ubuntu Linux,
> everything would depend on some specific implementation of some
> specific idea?
> 

As I stated in my previous post.  I don't care about the location of
OSD.  I'm fine with it.  I also think the idea of an algorithm to judge
placement is a great idea.   This algorithm goes beyond desktop
specification. You are trying to interpret how the user uses the
desktop.  That's AI territory.  I seriously doubt you get one that works
all the time and probably have some serious corner cases. IMHO, you are
going to need a contingency plan.  I could be wrong, but it's irrelevant
to the argument.

Again, my concern and is not the options itself, it's our new
understanding of the Ayatana Unique Vision(TM).  We understand what you
need. Everyone.  From Mom and Dad at home to the Proteomics Researcher
at MIT. :/

IIRC, Ubuntu is about 30% of the installed desktop base(if I'm wrong,
correct me).  The desktop is the most visible aspect of Linux.  Enough
disagreements causes a fork.  The fork causes disruption to 30% of the
desktop base.  Momentum is disrupted since we are now divided.   The
stance being taken is pretty antagonistic to some Linux power users.
Just the kind that causes forks. And they are part of the marketing
muscle for Ubuntu.  Are they the majority users?  I don't want to find
out this way.  

Current events: Karmic is coming out.  Verizon, a major carrier, is
releasing an competitive Android phone. Windows 7 is coming out after
Vista's failure and MS wants $$$.  IBM/Canonical Windows-Free desktop
initiative is afoot.

All now.  Timing is half the battle.  It's an excellent chance to gain
Linux mindshare.  


> 
> And what if other distributions decide not to use Notify-OSD? Is
> complete Linux OS will be suddenly doomed?

They aren't forks.  They are existing distros.  If they join in, we are
stronger.  Without them we are where we are.



> 
> I don't believe that. I do believe that when the Notify-OSD will be
> release in official 9.10, many
> developers and otherwise technically inclined people will have
> absolutely great time to create
> exciting applications with it. I do believe that there's a lot of
> place for creativity here.

Again, I'm not focused on the Notify-OSD.  I think a majority of the
people will be happy with it.  Mozilla appears to still be on the fence,
which troubles me.  I feel like the entire spec isn't flushed out.  But,
it looks like the gnome shell people have seen the problem and are
working on it. Whether we include it appears to be an open question now.
This is a whole separate thread.

More importantly, I'm concerned about the desktop vision. And I think
that concern is valid. If you want proof, check the mailing list stats.
This has generated the most mail of any thread in quite a while, even
Mark's post about closing the list.  The people on this list are
passionate supporters of Ubuntu.  And again, they are the marketing
muscle behind it's success.


>         
> 
> 
> Uhm, why is it so hard to include "let do this and change that" into
> "live with the
> results"? It's no an MS process, where the decision is made, it never
> gets reviewed
> and nobody cares what users think. 

"Live with the results", at least when interpreted by a U.S. reader,
appears to mean that we make a decision and don't change no matter the
consequences, even if the idea is really, really dumb.  This could just
be semantics.  As it sits, it unnerves me.

BTW, MS does care what users think.  They pay big money on focus groups.
They've just made some really astronomically bad decisions based on
legacy support and corporate interests.  And they are hamstrung by a
really bad architecture.  

In short, they didn't let outside input deflect them from their Unique
Vision(TM)


> We have an interactive process, where something
> is released (soon to be in this case too), then it gets feedback, and
> then new iteration cycle
> begins. But to produce great product it is imperative to have focus.
> You can't have focus with
> too much stuff on your hands, so in some cases (and this is one of
> them) the choices will
> be made that may seem too harsh to some people. That's just life.


Focus has a flip side.  Tunnel vision. History is my guide.  A single
monolith with significant market share makes a decision based on their
Unique Vision(TM).  It's not always right.  I'm not sure the average age
of the list but I remember a time when IBM was god almighty ruler of the
PC universe  They decided that MicroChannel architecture was the way to
go. If you wanted it, you had to go IBM otherwise try another
manufacturer.  Everyone one did, and now they sell JBOSS.

If you're too young for that, how about New Coke. :)


>         > Whether or not non-computer-specialist people continue to
>         embrace and
>         > enjoy Ubuntu. And whether computer specialists continue to
>         do the
>         > same.
>         
>         
>         It's the second group that you are in danger of alienating. :/
>         
>         
> 
> 
> Hardly so. I don't believe that technically savvy people will stop
> using Ubuntu
> because they can't change the default position of Notify-OSD.


Again, big picture.


> 
> Please Jim, get some proportion here. How come one application, albeit
> at the core
> of the system, leads to a dark path? What if in future versions, it
> will split into backend and
> frontend, and anyone will be able to write their own frontend with
> their gazillions of options?
> Would that solve the conceptual problem with this battle?

Big Picture.  See Above...

RE: Front end and back end.  Simple example.  If you make a desktop less
customizable out of the box, it reduces your chances for enterprise
deployment. There is always some company that does something
differently.  Perhaps, a proprietary corporate IM client that sits at
the same place. Sure they can compile a custom libnotify.  They can also
try Fedora.

I'm not talking about visible checkboxes or customization applications.
Don't go the KDE route.  Give power users/admins access to gconf for a
few variables that could have a big impact on user experience. How do
you decide which ones?  I think I heard a good candidate today. :)

Please understand that I do not write this because I've got nothing
better to do.  I'm also not a troll or particularly combative.  I'm not
going to run off and change distros.  I've been a huge supporter of
Ubuntu/Linux/FOSS.  I stood up to my boss to get Ubuntu as our
development platform.  I've got Karmic on a brand spanking new MacBook
5,1 that's never seen OSX. (To a degree, my ass is in a sling over the
mac) I'm working with Sys Admin to get Ubuntu as our standard distro,
and maybe on our cluster.  I have a vested interest in the survival of
this distro.

And today I'm really, really concerned. :/

Jim

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature