Is this mailing list defunct?

[satchitb at gmail.com]

Sir, you are my hero.
Ubuntu has become impossible to file bug reports for, because everything is
now an "opinion". I do see Canonical's point to some extent about keeping
the Launcher uncustomisable. Natty is just riddled full of bugs and to make
Unity more customisable would create more bugs by the shovelful. However,
there is absolutely no compulsion for Canonical to have such an impossible
release schedule. I think everyone would agree that Natty was pushed out
much too early. Six months is too short a time to adequately iron out all
the wrinkles in the release, especially when regular developers** are tired
after a release. This kind of schedule might have worked fine in the early
days, when every release brought in tons of functionality and support, but
now, Ubuntu is a fairly mature OS, which covers every use case, and with a
growing user base, requires stability. Ubuntu should sent out a release
every year, with an unstable dev version available but not advertised on the
site. That would give more adventurous and advanced users the opportunity to
try out new features, while users that prefer a stable system will always
have one. Sticking to LTS releases is not an option either, as we've seen
numerous complaints from users that Lucid is poorly supported and that even
stable applications are not backported.

About the behaviour of the Launcher, I must confess I agree with Canonical
here. Scale for an individual application is very handy, and I don't think
it's particularly hard to figure out after the first time. However, just
after downloading, there should be a quick guide to Ubuntu. It won't be more
than two pages.

The other big issue is that settings are too widely scattered across Ubuntu,
with a hundred different applications to do a hundred different things. I
don't know how things are in Oneiric, but in Natty, typing "settings" in the
Dash throws up not just "System Settings" but other myriad applications
which constitute it, such as Network Connections, Email Settings, Bluetooth,
etc. All these should be hidden, and System Settings should be easily
displayed to the user. Other than that, elementary OS' idea of a modular
Settings Hub (they call it Switchboard) is a much needed one, with different
tools being available to the user without hunting through a hundred
third-party applications. I've said this time and again: there must be only
two customisation tools in Ubuntu: one for aesthetic effects (themes,
backgrounds, etc), and one for functionality (which side the dock, default
applications, etc).



On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Sebastian Rösgen
<s.roesgen at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> first of all: thanks to Craig. I share your opinion. One should at least
> listen to these "pet" bugs and try to appear as if one cared about these
> bugs. They way how it people deal with these bugs is -- to me -- a display
> of a behaviour which is beyond arrogance. It is as if the Ubuntu/Canonical
> developers thought, they were dealing with kids and not with mature people.
> Perhaps thinking about the complaints some people utter about the behaviour
> of the system is what should be done here. Certainly not all complaints are
> valid but especially if 119 people vote for "affects me" there must be
> something about these errors.
>
> secondly about Ubuntu Tweak: I like the idea and I love the work which has
> been done to the tool during the recent time. I think it is a good step in
> the right direction because it really offers a overview about those aspects
> of the desktop which can be configured. Especially the plug-in system is a
> good idea, for it is now possible to remove certain configuration options
> which are not needed by most people, and it leaves the option (for more
> advanced users) to add those configuration options if needed. (And the new
> UI is, generally speaking, a real big step forward.)
>
> But besides the praise I have one big problem with Ubuntu Tweak. I do not
> like the idea of a configuration system which must be installed to the
> system in addition to the Gnome Control Center. Wouldn't it be better to
> integrate a couple of the Ubuntu Tweak options in the Gnome Control Center?
>
>
> I additionally have to say that Craig is about the fixation on Ubuntu
> Tweak. There are some pressing issues on other places and I really hoped
> that this list might raise some voices of doubt about the direction Ubuntu
> is currently heading down (being driven down that wrong path by some
> questionable decisions by the Ayatana members).
>
> Let me refer (again) to those two pet bugs of mine and let me explain why
> they are important to me. I really do not want to bore anyone, but I want
> you to understand me. And I want to do this especially for Jorge, to simply
> show him that his horse of arrogance is not providing him a saddle as steady
> as he might think. The nice word "pet bug" belittles a huge problem posed
> before the Ubuntu community and questions  the decision making processes
> which I criticize so much.
>
> Bug 733349 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/**ayatana-design/+bug/733349<https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349>)
> deals with the behaviour of the Launcher when an icon of an already running
> application is clicked. The questions was if it weren't better to minimize
> the windows of the running application instead of doing nothing or
> activating spread mode or whatever.
>
> There were many discussions about the right behaviour. In my opinion the
> most problematic aspect of the current behaviour is the factor of the
> "expectation" of the users. If you would decide to go into spread mode on a
> middle mouse click that would be ok. But the left mouse click is usually the
> default action. If you have only one window of an application opened and the
> window is already focused, then the click will bring you NO reaction at all.
> Also, some quicklists are not yet completed and a right click will thus, not
> necessarily, offer you any option to open more than one instance of an
> application. Most prominent among these applications is nautilus. I cannot
> understand why nobody thought about the possibility to easily and quickly
> open a second window. Why do I have to use the (hidden) global menu?
> Now, this all would not be so problematic if I had the option to change the
> behaviour. There was none. Believe be I never had ANY problem with default
> behaviour of ANY software as long as the Desktop/Operating System offered me
> the possibility to modify the behaviour of my desktop. Ubuntu/Canonical
> instead decided to ignore any individuality in the users and denied them
> nearly any possibility to modify the desktop.
>
> Funny about this is the reason that "it is more easily to support and
> administrate a system which always looking  the same". So when somebody
> calls me I can say "click on the launcher on the left and do the following
> steps...". Well, that is a nice thought. BUT: until recently I worked at a
> University. I have switched my employer now, but I remember a nice example,
> concerning user support which disproves the reason for the unconfigurability
> of Unity given here so far. We installed Ubuntu on a couple of library PCs
> in different libraries on the campus. We had made good experiences with
> Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (in the department of ethnology and anthropology and in the
> department of English linguistics). But those people who should install the
> OS chose Ubuntu 11.04 instead of 10.04 and then placed these PCs in the
> libraries. We had not many complaints about the 10.04 PCs. But the
> complaints about 11.04 were many. Especially the behaviour of the system was
> sometimes so unexpected and unfamiliar that people did not want to use the
> Ubuntu PCs. The argument that "Ubuntu behaved more like Mac OS X instead of
> Windows" did not help because one of the aspects frustrating the users was
> that the launcher looked like a dock and very often behaved like a dock but
> it factually was not like the Mac OS X dock. It lacked many of its features.
> It was funny that it helped to install Docky on the PCs. This solved at
> least one of the complaints (there were others).
>
> Now you can certainly argue that I proved how easily I can configure Ubuntu
> (by installing Docky) to solve one problem. But first of all the argument
> that the fixed launcher behaviour made it easier to maintain the desktop is
> not true. Instead there is now an additional application installed which can
> produce additional errors.
>
> Next there is the nice aspect of comments 175 and 176 of the launchpad page
> of bug 733349. Can you all see how frustrated Marco Biscaro is? He wrote a
> patch which made it possible to configure the launcher as wanted. But it was
> rejected. Not he does not want to port the patch for unity 4.x until he
> knows that the patch is accepted. Totally understandable! Why should he
> invest time, for which he is not paid and he does not even get a thank you?
> Where was the problem to say "thank you that you invested your time". Where
> was the problem to say "now, that somebody invested time to write that
> patch, we will think about offering an option in the control center or ccsm
> which makes it possible to switch between the default Launcher behaviour and
> a different one."
>
> Btw.
> Some month ago I asked on this list if somebody of the Canonical/Ubuntu
> developers could say if it is possible that Ubuntu Tweak (after some
> modifications) can be integrated into Ubuntu by default (to offer some more
> options to configure the system). There was never any answer to this. Was
> this some pet bug, too? Oh you all so much for the community, I am really
> baffled! If you do not want any of us involved or to share ideas or to say
> our opinion then please do not try to start any community project anymore.
> Be it a Power User Community or a different one. And no these bugs are not
> my "pet bugs" they are seemingly the pet bugs of 119 people. We all share
> one small little pet bug. So do not mind if I am frustrated and angry, as
> there are 119 people who all have to share one single pet bug. It is getting
> crowded on that launchpad page of bug 733349. It is getting crowded on the
> page of bug 668415, as well. A "pet" bug sounds to me like a personal, small
> bug. Heck! I am really frustrated Perhaps I should file a different bug
> which only gets two or three "affects me" votes. These very often get fixed
> more quickly as it seems. And at least then I would have a real small, nice
> pet bug for my self (or nearly my self ...). I hope there are not too many
> people voting "affect me" on that bug, because then it would be again one of
> those strange pet bugs which become so crowded.
>
>
>
>
> Am 03.10.2011 14:43, schrieb Craig Maloney:
>
>  On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
>>
>>  As far as I can tell this mailing list is to coordinate these things:
>>> [...]
>>> * provide communication channels and support resources.
>>> [...]
>>> But so far it seems to me that this is mailing list is just a list of
>>> people either talking about their setup or complaining about pet bugs,
>>> so I don't really know how to fix that.
>>>
>>
>> I think the first way to fix it is to listen to the "pet bugs" and setups,
>> thereby creating a communication channel and support resource. ;)
>>
>> I joined the list with the idea that the power users would have an
>> opportunity to discuss their setup, and see if we could somehow influence
>> the design of Unity and Ubuntu to somehow cater to the wants and desires of
>> "power users". And it started out that way, but once Ubuntu Tweak was
>> mentioned, the list focused on that as a swiss-army catch-all for fixing
>> everything power-users found wanting in Ubuntu / Unity.
>>
>> If Ubuntu Tweak is the only fruit of the mailing list (outside of
>> providing a forum for folks to discuss how they use their computers), then
>> at least we have that. However, that falls short of my expectations for this
>> list. It also calls into question the efforts to court power users into
>> discussing their issues instead of merely paying lip-service to wanting
>> power-user input.
>>
>> I wanted to see if I might have a voice in design decisions from a
>> power-user's perspective. If we can have that forum, I think this list still
>> has merit. If the only solution is an add-on tool that eventually will cause
>> problems when Unity needs to break compatibility, then we need to rethink
>> whether anything useful will be accomplished by this list, or whether
>> discussion should be taken to Ubuntu Tweak instead.
>>
>>
> --
> Non quia difficilia sunt, non audemus, sed quia non audemus, difficilia
> sunt!
> <Seneca>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-power-users mailing list
> Ubuntu-power-users at lists.**ubuntu.com<Ubuntu-power-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-power-**users<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-power-users>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-power-users/attachments/20111005/c2615a97/attachment-0001.html>