[Ubuntu-PH] SJVN reports that "Ubuntu changes its desktop from GNOME to Unity"

Tue Oct 26 10:35:09 UTC 2010

On Tuesday, 26 October, 2010 05:36 PM, hard wyrd wrote:
>
> Mimicking a UI of one OS is technically deception. And instead of
> letting those users get familiar with a Linux user interface, they'll
> continue on with the same thing from Windows. 
>
> It is exactly this thinking - users "will never be" experimenting,
> learning, and asking questions - that made a lot of people call system
> administrators as BOFH in the first place. As tech people -
> knowledgeable in the systems - i believe it's the tech's
> responsibility to educate them, show them the hoops, guide them
> through the ropes a little. Yes they do experiment, yes they do ask
> questions, and yes they do find solutions as long as we are not so
> uptight about stuff and give them a little lee way to explore (within
> bounds).  Honestly, they're just so damn afraid that they'll break
> something and afraid to earn the ire of the techs.
>  
>
> Exactly. Under a consultant's point of view, it's bad form to just
> jump in without knowing what they want. But then again, when offering
> a Linux-based solution, make sure that they know it _is_ Linux with UI
> that's reminiscent of Linux and not some knock off of another OS,
> because that is definitely misleading.
:: Of course they know it _is_ Linux, they wouldn't ask for a demo if it
is not. ;)  Seriously, no kidding (I'm not being sarcastic or anything).

:: You're taking the UI as something that will kill Linux off.  A UI is
just that, a UI.  They can customize it all they want, make it look like
LCARS (Star Trek interface) if they want to, it's just a UI.  And if a
Windows mock-up will get them interested with Linux (Ubuntu to be
exact), then why not?  Secondly, when you demo Linux, you make sure you
show them at least two UIs, be it GNOME or KDE, or in our case with
other groups, GNOME and Windows mock-up.

:: So I will still disagree, it is not a deception at all, not even
technically, because they know what it is all about.  That's what and
why there is a demo, a presentation.  Deception is not telling them what
they need to know right there and then, no "we'll tell them next time".
>
> Totally different from the mimicked UI we were discussing a few
> paragraphs back. But I agree on you on this part. That's what I do to
> clients as well. But I make sure I let them know it's Linux, Ubuntu,
> whatever, and I keep the UI as it is. But that's me. :).
>
>  
>
>     :: It isn't perfect, and it is harder in office evironments.  But
>     I have better success in that method than presenting GNU/Linux and
>     Ubuntu "as-is".  It is far from being a deception.  We want to
>     present GNU/Linux as a product "for them, not for geeks".
>
>
> Ubuntu is already usable as it is. Why change the UI to look like Windows?
:: So it won't be "too much" for them?  Or they will have an even more
opened mind?  Or because they asked to?  Or because we want to give them
options or show the freedom they can have with Linux?

:: I don't know.  Should there be deep and fundamental reasons to why or
why not we should include a presentation/demo of Ubuntu with a Windows
UI theme?  It's catered to them, we knew the kind of people there are in
the organization beforehand (or the individual).  ^_^
>
> In what way were Mac users better than Windows users?
:: Most of them already have an open mind, re: other OS.  But I
misunderstood you there, I switched the scenario, I thought I read "Macs
to Windows"
>
>
>>      
>>
>>         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 don't think they're going to drop "Linux" because it still is a
>>     Linux distribution. To me the recent decisions were to make it a
>>     bit more recognizable than "just another Linux distro". How will
>>     it distinguish itself from the rest? It's still Linux but
>>     something will need to be done as far as risks and bold moves are
>>     concerned.
>     :: No, I wasn't referring to dropping Linux, it won't run without
>     it.  And if you meant "name", they never used "Ubuntu Linux", not
>     that I remember.  Regardless, that's what I was talking about. 
>     They're looking at the product to become a "household name". 
>     Instead of "Linux", it will be "Ubuntu".  It is still Linux
>     underneath, but the non-geeks know it by "Ubuntu".
>
>
> Mac is Unix underneath. But do people refer to it as Unix? I think
> this is semantics :)
:: Exactly my point ^_^  Positioning Ubuntu to where Mac is positioned. 
And that _is_ a good strategy, I am all behind it.  If my analysis is
correct and that is where they see Ubuntu is going or will be in the future.
>
>     :: For us, we care so much about correctness of terminologies,
>     like "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux".  To the non-geeks, they do not care
>     and never will.  What they want is a working operating system that
>     they has a very low (re)-learning process - in other words, they
>     can use with minimal supervision and QnA's.
>
>     :: It's like this: "why fix when it is not broken?"  For them,
>     "why migrate to Linux (or GNU/Linux) if I already have Windows?" 
>     We can't just sell them "no viruses" if the individual or entity
>     (office environment) have a system in place that keeps viruses out
>     ¾'s of the time.  We can't just sell them "it is faster than
>     Windows" if the individual or their ITC department made
>     enhancements to it.  If we want to sell the idea to them, then we
>     need to cater the product to them.  If we want them to migrate,
>     then we need to give them compelling reasons to switch.
>
>
> And compelling is using a UI that mimicks Windows?
:: No, that they can customize the UI as much as they want.  It's the
options.  They have an option to have a Windows-look if they want,
"we'll set it up for them" or stick with the default or get a Mac look. 
The freedom, how easy it is, the options they can have.  That makes it
compelling for non-geeks, especially those without an ITC
Linux-knowledgable in-house support.  ^_^
>
> Anyway, going back to the original reason why this thread exists. I
> don't think it will matter much if Ubuntu goes the Unity route. if
> people wanna use it, I don't think it's that hard to learn how use
> Unity. And people will try Ubuntu not because it uses Unity as a GUI,
> or GNOME, or whatever. 
>
> Regards! 
>
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> "Penguin, penguin, and more penguin !"
>
> www.madforubuntu.com <http://www.madforubuntu.com>
> baudizm.blogsome.com <http://baudizm.blogsome.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ph/attachments/20101026/57fc375f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ph/attachments/20101026/57fc375f/attachment.pgp>