"However, not many employees like new UI changes meant for consumers and not developers. Some of the Google employees also requested removing Unity and Gnome 3 and using xmonad instead."
This.
Google is exactly the company that would use Ubuntu. They're not the company that would want unity. So WTF were they thinking?
Basically, some time on the earlier 2000's, someone decided the "secret" of a good Linux UI was a UI "for dummies". Whoever decided this was wrong, pathetic and contemptible. As alternative OS for an alternative desktop, Linux needs to be easy yes, but also powerful enough to give an exciting experience to those smart and adventurous people willing try something new, not a shitty copy of cartoonish UIs intended for morons. IE, the idiots who are targeted by Unity will not lift a finger to actually install it. The people who would try Ubuntu on their own deserve better than Unity.
I find the vitriol directed towards Unity puzzling, and regardless of your technical disagreements with the decisions its designers made, it's surely a tad over the top to call them "wrong, pathetic and contemptible".
FWIW I recently switched to using Unity with 12.04 and overall have found it very useful and efficient. From a classic usability perspective (e.g., Fitts' Law), moving the application menu bar to the window is much more efficient. And I appreciate the speed and ease-of-use of the HUD.
My wife had an oldish laptop running Windows that was becoming increasingly slow and unreliable. Since 99% of her computer use is in a web browser, I installed Ubuntu and Chrome and it's as good as new.
My wife doesn't want an "exciting experience", she just wants the computer to work reliably. Same for me. Generally I don't particularly care what changes are made at the desktop level since most of my time is spent in applications or the shell, but for the record I appreciate and applaud the work that Ubuntu has put into Unity, and kudos to the designers for their good work.
The problems some people have with Unity might be bugs or simple design mistakes (that kind of stuff certainly appears in any large application and I'm sure Unity's developers were highly competent, well-intentioned and deserving of appreciation despite any bugs). However, the problem I have in particular with Unity is that it's intended to solve making easy stuff easy by making even slightly hard stuff impossible. I don't believe that's a good philosophy for an OS that's going to spread by word-of-mouth, that will inspire loyalty in its users. (if you read my post carefully, my vitriol is directed as those who put forward the "improvement by removing options". I'm sorry if I went a bit over the top. Linux does seem to have a heritage of blunt-to-the-point-of-rudeness expression).
I also believe that it is quite possible to create a graphic shell that satisfies both minimal users and more sophisticated users.
not this. 'this' is a shortcut to 'i concur' or any other phrase meaning agreement which would be in the comment anyway. isn't it shorter to just say 'this'?
Shorter doesn't automatically equal better. Keep the abbreviations where they belong: text messages. All online message board communication seems to be devolving slowly into text message speak and I don't think it is a good thing.
A UI that "makes sense" is a lot better than a UI "for dummies". If the time is taken to come up with an interface that's logical, consistent, and minimal, it will appeal both to people with no clue how to use it and those who use it constantly and expect a lot from it.
Linux in particular tends to dumb things down rather than simplify them, as if the distinction is completely lost. Then it buries all the complexity in these configuration files or in obscure nooks and crannies of the UI that only the most determined can find.
The "secret" is to bust your ass and come up with ideas that make sense, to lead with consistency. Unfortunately open-source tends to be design by committee of designed at all because of the collaborative nature of it.
If Linus Torvalds can have final say for the kernel, where are the others who hold similar sway over UI? Maybe it's that it's very hard for a designer to earn the respect of programmers because their skill sets are under-appreciated.
I always thought unity was designed for touch screens. Everything about it is fat for touching. I think Ubuntu wants to move to the touch screen device market.
And I find it very frustrating because I have no intention of touching any of my desktop screens.
I don't like Unity for my own daily computing. I prefer a tiling wm, often with all windows full screened. I tend to prefer minimal gui. My preference is especially strong because my laptop screen has a ten inch diagonal.
But on other machines that I've set up (for my self, and others), with a normal size screen, used primarily for web browsing and basic word processing, Unity is great. Widgets aren't "fat for touching", they're fat targets for easy clicks.
Unity has its flaws. It shouldn't be the only option. I do, however, believe it is getting better for a non-techie user.
Thank god, with this, I can finally say that there isn't a corner of the Internet that doesn't have irrational Unity hate. I'd bet money you've not used it for any serious amount of time.
I have used Unity in its 5.10/Ubuntu 12.04 incarnation for several months now and I rather like it on a medium sized monitor. Not so much on a netbook at 1024/600
But I'm not a programmer. I am an end user. Perhaps we will now see increasing differentiation between those who code and those who use?
Yes, I like the idea that a teenager can get hold of a second hand laptop, put GNU/Linux on it and have the same tools that people at Google and Facebook and all use every day.
However, I suspect Canonical need to move the interface into a coherent, fairly tightly integrated stack appropriate to consumer devices so they can make some money and continue to provide a convenient base install and repository system (and pay wages).
This.
Google is exactly the company that would use Ubuntu. They're not the company that would want unity. So WTF were they thinking?
Basically, some time on the earlier 2000's, someone decided the "secret" of a good Linux UI was a UI "for dummies". Whoever decided this was wrong, pathetic and contemptible. As alternative OS for an alternative desktop, Linux needs to be easy yes, but also powerful enough to give an exciting experience to those smart and adventurous people willing try something new, not a shitty copy of cartoonish UIs intended for morons. IE, the idiots who are targeted by Unity will not lift a finger to actually install it. The people who would try Ubuntu on their own deserve better than Unity.