Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron

Opurt writes "On the first day of the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston this week, a roundtable session focused on the vision for the upcoming Hardy Heron Ubuntu release. Unlike Gutsy Gibbon, which brought a handful of experimental features along with some new functionality, the focus with Heron will be on robustness as it will be supported on the desktop for 3 years. 'The Compiz window manager, which adds sophisticated visual effects to the Ubuntu user interface, will be a big target for usability improvements. Keyboard bindings and session management were noted as two areas where Compiz still needs some work.' PolicyKit and Tracker will also be significantly tweaked, while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh."

Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[Anonymous Coward]

The Debian swirl doesn't hack it any more.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[WheelDweller]

Well, as a total outsider to the Debian mindset, let me offer this.

I used Redhat with the RPMS and all, even maintaining software. It was the second foray into Linux; the first time was with Slackware 2.3 and about 30 floppies. I stayed with Redhat from 4.0 until FC4, but by that time I was sick of the business bias. For about a year OpenLdap on their repo was busted. It was nearly herculean to get it to work, and keep it working. Then they offered a replacement to it in the purchase of the Netscape Directory, and I felt the time was right to look around.

Ubuntu has done a fabulous job with Debian's beginnings. They had the resources and the passion to make releases and push the envelope....but they couldn't have done it without what I CLEARLY see as the better package manager: Debian.

Personally, I love Ubuntu. And I've grown to love it, not just for it's lack of business bias, but for it's product as well.

We really owe a lot to "Deb" and "Ian" for their brilliant, visionary start.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[domatic]

That quality you notice isn't inherent to the package manager. Debian would be just as good if it were based on rpm. Debian is quite anal about packages and their
dependencies and good mirrors for same. This is the base that makes the Debian derived distros so good.

If rpm based distros took just as care with viewing packages-as-a-unified system (and maybe some do) then they'd be as kind to you.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[ppc_digger]

We really owe a lot to "Deb" and "Ian" for their brilliant, visionary start.

If memory serves, Deb isn't one of the Debian founders, she is Ian Murdock's wife (then girlfriend).

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[xenocide2]

You know what they say: Behind every great man is a woman pushing him to excel. Or something. I'm just glad it worked out -- imagine the flame wars on what to rename the distro had they broken up!

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[pintpusher]

Ubuntu has done a fabulous job with Debian's beginnings [...] Personally, I love Ubuntu. And I've grown to love it [...] for it's product as well.

I think Ubuntu is great in that it is helping people migrate away from the default OS.

But I have to say, Debian *itself* is a great product. There seems to be this idea that Ubuntu is the usable Debian, and that's just not true. Debian has become really a very advanced OS in terms of usability, portability, and reliability. Debian is so much more than just a great beginning for other OSes to build on.

Granted, its not the bee's knees in terms of the latest versions of apps and so forth (talking stable here), but talk about a system you can rely on...

Finally, to those who complain that Debian is too slow to upgrade: Look at how often the average user upgrades their windows system... umm... how old is XP? How many win98/2k boxes are still out there? There is nothing wrong with using Debian stable for 2-3 years and then upgrading. The payoff is a rock solid system that "just works".

I love debian. There I said it. :-P

RPM vs Apt from a long time SuSE user

[spineboy]

I've been using linux since 99, and have been using SuSE since 2001. I've played with at least 6-7 other distros as well from Mandrake to Gentoo. I've stuck with SuSe for a long time just because of the number of users and support.
However, I just recently switched to Ubuntu, and have to say that the Apt system is much better than the RPM, at least for a "power user".
    I've gotten into RPM-dependency hell more often than I'd liked in the past with SuSE when installing something, and so far, haven't had any sort of problem with Ubuntu. I agree, it may only be that Ubuntu is very strict about their software library, and that's all there is to it, but as a user the ease of use and successful installs clearly make Ubuntu a superior format.

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[jimmy_dean]

People have been calling it "Ubunghole" for seemingly forever, and it didn't bother me. But after hearing about "Gutsy Gibbon"... it just seems like Ubuntu is one big joke, or else into some really twisted stuff.

"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.

Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer.

Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!

Someone please tag this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"hairy hardon"

Re:Someone please tag this ...

[rubycodez]

you're thinking of Gaybuntu. Most users are still at Flaming Flamingo, but some have upgraded to the Gaping Goatse.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[kazade84]

The numbering system in Ubuntu is based on year, month of release (e.g 7.10) Obviously in development no-one knows if they are going to meet the deadline or miss it like they did with 6.06. This is the reason that the code names are used.

To make it clearer, development has just started on Hardy Heron, or what is likely to be known as 8.04. To start development the Ubuntu devs create repositories named after the codename (e.g. Hardy). If they used 8.04 and the deadline was missed and the release was actually 8.06 they wouldn't easily be able to change the repositories and other stuff.

The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds.

So to sum up, the code names are there for a perfectly logical reason, and the animal thing is just a consistent naming theme that was chosen.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Matt Perry]

The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds.

Although you might not be able to see "gutsy" on the Ubuntu home page, the code names are used almost exclusively by people in the support forums.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[swillden]

So instead of the funny animals, use 8r1, 8r2. So the internal name would be 8r1, and the version would be 8.04, ....

Bah. I like the funny animal names, and so do lots of other people. If that wasn't the case, people would use the version numbers when talking about Ubuntu releases. But they don't, because the code names are cool.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[InlawBiker]

Using the nicknames very effective in "demystifying" the whole experience.

I've been using Linux and Unix for a long time. One thing it's never been is friendly to outsiders. Ubuntu excels at making the Linux experience seem simple and clean. The documentation, installation, desktop, even the web site is simplified and unified. Attaching an easy to remember nickname to the release is part of that plan. It humanizes the product. Techies may be chapped over it, but realize the cute nickname isn't for you. It's for people who are scared of the word "kernel."

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[mattpalmer1086]

Excellent point. Like many techies, I used to underestimate marketing, sneering a bit at it I guess. Then I had the privilege of working with a very astute marketing person on product development, and she totally changed my opinion. If it's going to work for many people, it has to work on many levels - technical is important, but nowhere near the only one.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[PitaBred]

Nope, but they did use Cheeze Whiz [wikipedia.org] as a code name for AppleScript, which is infinitely better than a Hardy Heron, right? All software development houses use code names. They use them for a reason, so ambiguities in discussion are removed. Not all of them can be called "SuperDangerMegaCat", or something "manly" and intimidating. Deal with it.

more details

[sayfawa]

Here's a better summary [fsckin.com] of things to come in Hardy, linked from an OS News [osnews.com] posting.

Re:more details

[zeromorph]

Installing Ubuntu from within Windows
ubuntu-install.exe... nuff said... might not make it though... it is listed as 'dangling' which means it can't be scheduled or has circular dependancies... no idea why it can't be made to work.

(from your interesting link [fsckin.com])

Don't whether that's a good idea.
But imagine the possibilities that such an exe-file would have as a spam-email attachement: "Mark Shuttlewort wants you to click on this link." or "Bigger hard drive, better performance! Click below!"

Re:more details

[MooseMuffin]

Being tricked into installing linux is the least of your problems if you're getting spam with 700mb attachments.

Re:more details

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, but I think this is the *best* summary so far:

-We're still going to make grub HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in the install process. I mean, obviously, it's stupid to install such a flaky bootloader that can't handle large hard drives when you don't need to, but why bother newcomers with a warning about the nasty nasty risk of locking users out of their computer? Changing this would be tantamout to admitting UbuntuDupe was right, and we can't have that. Too painful to admit error.

-Ditto for advising the user to have a reliable boot disk, like a Windows release, when they install grub. Obviously, the Ubuntu install CD is insufficient as a "reliable boot disk", but saying otherwise would -- you guessed it -- hurt our feelings.

-Continue to promote as "open access, usable by all". By "all", of course, we mean nerds who have installed Linux on six different people's PCs. Remember -- it's just a slogan, not something we actually believe in.

-Not budget any money for mass market advertising or in-store promotions. After all, only evil people affiliate with big box retailers. And do you really want our user base to include people who SHOP there? Yuck.

-Add a bunch of little widgets that only nerds who brag about their configuration will like.

-Have more names like "Hairy Hardon". See, too many corporate users are taking Ubuntu seriously. We need to remind people of our "fun" side. We definitely don't want to see the day when someone starts making those "get a mac" ads about Ubuntu!

-Take over the desktop market in '08!!!!

How about fixing things...

[tttonyyy]

...as well as adding new features?

'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.

Re:How about fixing things...

[JediTrainer]

Hear hear. I'd particularly like the regressions addressed - the latest upgrade broke my installation of Eclipse so I can't run Ant inside it [launchpad.net]

Yes, the workaround is to either download/install Eclipse manually or run Ant from the command-line, but it is annoying to see a basic feature still broken for weeks when it worked perfectly fine before.

Re:How about fixing things...

[haeger]

Yeah.
Gutsy broke my vmware. Not expected and from what I hear there's no vmware in gutsy still. We who have technical know-how can still fix it, but it does seem that the QA-dept slipped a bit on Gutsy.

.haeger

Re:How about fixing things...

[nhaines]

Ubuntu 7.10 didn't "break" your copy of VMware server. Every time you change your kernel, you need to recompile the kernel modules for VMware. VMware provided kernel modules for Ubuntu 7.04's updates. Currently they do not provide kernel modules for 7.10. They will probably begin providing these updates within a few weeks.

In the meantime, you just have to compile your own modules. It's very simple--it's a matter of running vmware-config.pl every time you upgrade the kernel, which will automatically take care of everything for you as long as you have build-essential installed.

As annoying as this is (and I find it mildly annoying, at least), it is the price of using a proprietary solution like VMware instead of similar Free solutions (like QEMU or VirtualBox).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How about fixing things...

[ericrost]

Not in Gutsy (at least amd64 gutsy). I had exactly the same "issue" and had to reinstall from the binary package from VMWare themselves. Not a huge deal (aside from my own messing up the restricted modules package version so i was pinned a release behind on the kernel with no headers available.. but I diegress), but not in the repos.

Re:How about fixing things...

[blazerw11]

Or, maybe, oops proxy has been abandoned for 4 years and doesn't work very well today. Last official release was Nov. 21, 2003. oops! downloads [paco.net].

Re:How about fixing things...

[Woy]

There was also a serious regression in KDE bluetooth functionality. Really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Looking at the release schedule

[morgan_greywolf]

It'll be a while for before Hardy Heron is Hardly Hereyet (*bada bum*!) But seriously, I'd like to see some big improvements in Gnome file management. Much of this could be done with pre-configured custom Nautilus actions, but where Nautilus could use some help:

• Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.
• Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.
• Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. See the support for this in Total Commander. Really easy.
• Install the GNOME GPG frontend by default. (is this already in Gutsy?)
• 
  
  Other stuff I'd like to see:
  
  
• Support for ext3 extended attributes and ACLs turned on by default.
• An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.
• LVM and RAID supported in the graphical installer. C'mon, guys, LOTS of people use RAID and LVM, especially now that most new computers have an integrated SATA RAID controller!

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[baadger]

Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.

Yeah, and their current permissions tab on the folder/file properties dialog which was introduced in 2.18 (I think), made the whole dialog a whole lot taller. It's pretty ugly.

Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.

This is a good idea, in fact I'd be happy if instead of saying

A file named "morgan.jpg" already exists. Do you want to replace it?

it said

A file named "morgan.jpg" already exists, but the files are the same

and then gave me some options.

Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching.

I think it'd be great if there was a way to sequentially number files using rename (Windows Explorer has this) or to mass change extensions, but anything more complex should resort to the command line. Perhaps with some easier to use command line renaming tools, like "chgext" or something.

An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.

Try VirtualBox, it'll blow you away :-)

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[Zonk (troll)]

An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.

I'd rather not have QEMU the default VM. It significantly lacks in features, usability, and polish. Running Windows under it gives horrible performance (even with kqemu) and has random application crashes. Instead, I'd like to see more integration with VirtualBox, which, btw, is licensed under the GPL* and included in Gutsy. It's fully GUI oriented (qt, unfortunately), has drivers for Windows to do seamless mouse and better video performance, and it also supports a "seamless" mode where Windows apps appear on the regular desktop. It's very far ahead. Overall it works rather well and has good snapshot support. I now use it instead of VMWare Server for desktop virtualization (for server virtualization Xen completely rocks).

* It's also under a "personal use and evaluation license", but there isn't a difference between the GPL version and the PUEL. They just don't provide binaries for the GPL version. Ubuntu's package is the GPL version so that's not an issue.

Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Given the way Linux users look at the Vista users, Haughty Heron might be more appropriate. Given the higher security of Linux, it could be Hardened Heron too. Given the cryptic command lines preferred by the unixy people, it could be Hackneyed Heron. Given the effect it is having on Redmond, it could be Haunting Heron.

Plans for Heron

[RandoX]

Bake at 325 for 45 minutes. Serve with Wine sauce.

Cute name game begins...

[phorest]

In 3,2,1...

Experiences

[PinkyDead]

If I was asked what things annoyed me most about Feisty (Offtopic?!), I would have said two things: Printers and all that stuff you needed Automatix for. Everything else was pretty much fine.

Along comes Gutsy and... Printers, wow! - doesn't get easier, and Automatix? I've been using Gutsy for about 2 months now and I still haven't downloaded Automatix (Sorry guys, great tool - but don't need it anymore)

Gutsy brings Ubuntu to a level where it can really stand up against the likes of Windows (even coming out better in a lot of surveys than Vista). Compiz is incredible - and anyone I know with Windows stands open-mouthed when they see it.

Heron really needs to up the level way beyond what it is at now, and become the Windows Slayer. I have no idea how they would do that though.

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does. That has to be achieved before it can topple Vista. It could happen, but I fear by the time it's achieved that, new software and hardware will have been released which it needs to support. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I don't see how it can win, which sucks.

Re:Experiences

[swillden]

It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does.

No, it doesn't.

I needs to run all of the software that people need. With a few exceptions, Ubuntu provides equivalent software to what's available for Windows, typically at a much better price. And the exceptions tend to be fairly specialized, expensive software packages, not general desktop stuff.

As for hardware, at this point in time Gutsy has better hardware support than Vista does, overall. There are a couple areas where Vista is better (wireless), but there is lots of hardware around, particularly older stuff, that Vista does not support and Ubuntu does.

In any case, the real way to beat the hardware support issue is to get Ubuntu pre-installed, and put it on the manufacturer to make sure that all of the hardware in the box works. That's how it works for Windows. You also need support for add-ons, but these days those are all USB and danged near everything works (cue the anecdotes from people who've found something that doesn't) just fine on Ubuntu. In fact, it often works *better* than it does on Windows because Windows will often require you to install some driver software whereas with Linux you just plug it in and it starts working.

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

That's what I'm talking about - running the software people want to run. Currently I can't use Ubuntu as my desktop, as my work requires me to use software that simply doesn't exist on Ubuntu (Adobe suite, mainly). The same goes for at home, as I like to play games. As for hardware support, you have to install drivers on Ubuntu, as well. It's not magic :) It does have plenty of built-in drivers, but then so does Windows. So far I've had a much better experience with hardware support on Windows than on Ubuntu (or indeed any linux distro). I'm not knocking anything, I'm just saying it's not perfect, in fact there are a few show-stoppers that need to be addressed before Windows is toppled.

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

It's not ready to kill Vista. Not even close. Check out the market share of Windows vs. OS X, and you'll see that. Hype != reality :)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Are they planning to fix the most appaling issue?

[ceeam]

Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

You know, after using Kubuntu for quite a long time and recently having played with PCLinuxOS I think I understand now why it has moved to #1 at Distrowatch. It rightly deserves the spot.

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[DFJA]

I seem to remember that Mark Shuttleworth chose Gnome not because of any technical reasons, but because they have a rigid 6 month release schedule which makes planning for commercial support much easier. I personally would love to see KDE switch to a similar release model (at least once KDE4 is officially released) then get the same level of attention from Canonical/Ubuntu. This would be much better for both KDE and for Ubuntu, in my opinion.

Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

Couldn't agree more. I have tried very hard, and on a number of occasions over the last 4 years, to like Gnome but in the end it's just too much hard work and I revert back to KDE which seems just so much better for what *I* want. OK this is my personal opinion and I don't want to start a flame war, but KDE in gutsy seems to be lacking the polish which is very evident in Gnome. Compiz works fine in KDE but requires a bit of manual fettling, for example. Even the behaviour of the update tool seems a lot slicker in Gnome - there's no reason this couldn't be done in KDE, it's just a matter of polish. If I had the time and experience I'd help out with polishing KDE, as it stands I can only really submit bug reports and hope that they get some attention who does have the time and experience.

WARNING *OPINIONS* PRESENT

[ericrost]

This is why I love Linux. Gnome fills my needs perfectly, but I'm not every user. KDE fills your needs perfectly, but again, you're not every user. Rather than getting into ugly pissing matches about who'd desktop is better, we can coexist and each have something we like.

I think the reasons for KUbuntu being less polished are pretty easily guessable. Ubuntu tends to be for newer Linux users (although I fall into the PowerUser/wannabe dev category). Gnome is a good DE for the underlying philosophy of Ubuntu (usable out of the box with little to no configuration, but able to be tweaked to your level). KDE tends to be for those that just need things exactly their way. KDE is not the default, so it falls to the downstream Kubuntu dev team to put the polish into the releases, and their a minority. Their working hard (I would imagine) on finishing KDE4's integration.

Anyhow, less of a point, more of a "this is why Linux gets my vote" post.

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[ceeam]

You don't understand, do you? KDE is first and foremost the API to develop consistent desktop apps. KDE4 will also include unified multimedia system and that would be the only thing rivaling Windows + DirectX (and of course, surpassing it). Comparing KDE to your launcher of choice is like comparing MS Windows to TotalCommander or something. And, KDE is not ugly in my opinion at all (unless you have a poor choice of widget theme and window decoration), I think it's really, really nice with Polyester + Crystal, for example.

Kubuntu too?

[joeslugg]

In TFA and in another posted summary that had more details, the focus (expectedly) is on standard Ubuntu. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if and how much focus and time is put on improving Kubuntu as well? I read things about improvements to GUI tools and apps, and it's always Gnome/GTK related. Are the KDE/Qt counterparts getting attention as well?

(Please, no flame wars on Gnome v. KDE - it's just my preference and you have yours.)

Hmm, I should go try their forums too...

Lots of GNOME problems already fixed in Kubuntu

[KWTm]

I've been reading the Ubuntu forums on feature requests etc. As a Kubuntu user, I feel like I'm irrelevant or left out.

There are lively discussions going on in Ubuntu about what can be improved. As I read through the list, I think, "Wait, that's already fixed in Kubuntu. Don't these peopel talk to each other?" To be sure, a lot of the time it's because the KDE system is more tightly integrated than GNOME, but sometimes it's just that the KDE app already has the feature and the GNOME app doesn't. (Didn't I read a Slashdot comment some months earlier wishing for a terminal app that would automatically reflow lines when the window was resized? I've been using one for the past few years.)

For example, this comment [slashdot.org] in this very thread says:

- Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.
- Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.
- Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. See the support for this in Total Commander. Really easy.

All of these are irrelevant in Kubuntu, which can do recursive renaming in Konqueror, easy one-click synchronize in Krusader (and Konqueror, too, I think), and the awesome file renamer Krename; they were already available in the v6.06 Long-Term Support version.

On the other hand, Kubuntu has some issues that are completely ignored in mainstream GNOME Ubuntu. There's all this hoopla about Meta Tracker being installed --do I understand correctly that it doesn't work with KDE? Instead, Kubuntu has to use Strigi. And there has been a problem with Kopete, which is generally ignored by GNOME users.

Also, the timing of Ubuntu releases like Gutsy are based on GNOME releases, but the newest version of KDE (3.5.8) came out half a month after Gutsy. But that's not what I'm drooling over; I'm waiting for KDE 4 to come out in December. I don't know how long it will take for that to make it into Gutsy, but it should make Kubuntu Hardy Heron a wicked, wicked upgrade. And --imagine, when onlookers say, "Wow, I wish I had that software!" then you can reply, "Ok, here's how to run KDE 4 on Windows." One more pathway to FOSS for those people too insecure to let go of their Windows boxen.

So, I'm starting to see Kubuntu being marginalized, which is a pity, since GNOME and KDE have so much to learn from each other.

Btw, lest you think I'm trying to feed the GNOME/KDE wars here, the #1 reason I use KDE over GNOME is that key bindings are configurable in KDE. <rant>When will GNOME get this? Why do I have to invoke the Paste function with Ctrl-V instead of Alt-Shift-F3 (or any other arbitrary key that I want)? When will Mozilla realize that not everyone wants to go to their home page with Alt-Home? (Yes, I know there's A Firefox Extension available, but that doesn't apply for GnuCash or Grip or any number of GNOME programs.) By contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major KDE program that *doesn't* let you assign two possible keybindings to each command. As I geek, keyboard controls mean everything to me, and until GNOME has this feature, I'll be running KDE. </rant>

Compiz Needs Test Results

[Doc Ruby]

Compiz doesn't work on every graphics card (or with every driver). The Compiz-Fusion wiki needs reports of which HW/drivers work or don't [compiz-fusion.org]. That list, in turn, will help recruit many more people to test and develop the feature.

Hardy Heron?

[nurb432]

What happened to 'horny hedgehog' ?

In my opinion...

[Derek Loev]

Right now the biggest fault with Ubuntu is Gnome. I've been using Ubuntu since the day Gutsy was released (previously a Gentoo user) and I love so many aspects of it. I even like the simplicity of Gnome compared to KDE. But, why does Gnome lack so many customization options. I mean, seriously, with so many developers it cannot be very difficult to create some small programs that modify GConf. That should be Gnome's priority and because Ubuntu relies so heavily on Gnome it needs to be one of Ubuntu's priorities to get the ball rolling.
I want to add different folders to my Places bar at the top of the screen, I want to add different buttons (like the Home folder, seriously, it was difficult) to the desktop. I want to be able to edit my Network servers in the Places bar.
I've figured out how to do all of this with gconf but there is absolutely no reason for me to not to be able to go into my System tab and figure out how to do this with a nice, pretty graphical program.
This post may be a little off topic and I know that Ubuntu comes in different flavors (Kubuntu, Xubuntu) but when the majority of users are going to be using Gnome with Ubuntu, then Gnome needs to improve to the point where it does not detract from the Ubuntu experience.

Re:In my opinion...

[notthe9]

This [pair.com] is an interesting read. It explains a lot about the philosophy behind things. Sometimes it looks nicer on paper (screen?) then when you just need to get something done.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Constantine XVI]

You know, you could just buy OSX

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[HiThere]

Apple has made some changes in their EULA recently (or, possibly, I've recently noticed some features) that make them no longer an acceptable choice. They've added that obnoxious(paraphrase) "we have the right to add, remove, copy, or delete any files from your system". That makes them an unacceptable choice.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Rejected

Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[m2943]

Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

OS X's file system is no "cleaner" than Ubuntu's. Furthermore, OS X fails to conform to standard UNIX file system conventions.

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

That attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with OS X.

In fact, there are many aspects of OS X that positively suck. You named some of them. Linux may need to imitate some aspects of Windows that suck simply because of the predominance of Windows in the market, but OS X's market share is so insignificant that the only features of OS X that are worth adopting in Linux are the ones that demonstrably are better than what Linux already has. File system organization, installers, and GUI designers are not among those.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[freezin fat guy]

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

Ahem, "that attitude" is not a bug - it's a feature

Mod parent funny

[ericrost]

it made ME laugh anyway :)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[HoaryCripple]

Will the above break the UNIX dir structure?

Those of us who have used UNIX for a long time know the merits of the UNIX directory structure. There is no need for it to change because a few new users think they know better.

The default install of any distribution should not break the UNIX directory structure. If there is an option to download a different version which will be easier for new users to manage, I am all for it.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Serious Callers Only]

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

I would have thought this was fairly self-explanatory.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem?

In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already. It reduces the chances of having naming clashes with files that are already there, and it would allow installation and de-installation using nothing more than drag and drop instead of the elaborate scripting systems now in place. It would also make it far easier to understand what specific files do: if you now find a file, let's say /etc/y13f4, and assuming for a moment that there is nothing on your system even remotely called "y13f4", would you know what it is for or who put it there? If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application. And then there is security: access to files in /etc and other directories could be far more limited than it is today, since no applications would have any business sticking their files there.

And let's have a look how Windows does it: every application writes a bunch of crap into the registry, and everyone is moaning about it. Yet when it is UNIX doing it it is fine? That really doesn't make ANY sense.

Yes, the idea that we want full control over our OS, rather than it having full control of us, is a bad thing.

I cannot image where that came from. Are you sure you were even replying to my post?

Also, the idea that we should not strive too hard to copy the ideas of someone else is a bad thing. I can definitely see the point in not avoiding lawsuits or stale, cheap imitations or accusations that we're just copying off of somebody else.

There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple), or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows). So you get to be like Windows, or you get to be like Apple. On that basis I would strongly prefer to be more like Apple - even when discounting the advantages of that model.

I completely understand now that the first Model T was the penultimate in cars because it was made by professionals, and we should never have made cars which were different.

But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

My alternative theory is that you urgently need to take some more medication.

Okay, rant over. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by keeping a clean filesystem. Please to elaborate, so that I may investigate its feasability. No seriously, I need something to do.

Oh, NOW I see: you are the person in charge of development over at Ubuntu! Sorry, I had no idea! Well, it is really simple. The original poster would like to see a system whereby applications don't write crap all over the /etc, /var, /lib, /usr, /usr/lib, /var/log, and whereever you stick manfiles these days. Instead he would like to store ALL THAT SHIT in one directory (per application, of course). Wouldn't that be neat? Moreover, I support that position: it would be extremely neat.

Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

Your baseless flaming of me, mostly based on statements that I did not actually make but only occurred in your head, unfortunately rules out that possibility. Too bad, but maybe we can try again in three years or so...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[DaleGlass]

In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already.

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration. Meaning, having part of the filesystem be shared through NFS. /etc, /bin, /sbin and /lib are needed for the system to boot. /usr may be mounted from a share, and can be readonly.

The different locations for binaries, settings, etc, makes it very easy to share data between a hundred boxes, but not the configuration, or the configuration as well if you want it.

Even if you don't need a network, this is still nice for system administration. For example my general layout is root FS on plain RAID-1, then /usr, /var and /home mounted from LVM. This ensures that even if LVM gets messed up somehow, the box still boots, and in fact it boots from any surviving drive since it's a software RAID-1. Since a functional system is already in place, recovery is much easier.

But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

The thing is that you don't understand the original model. You seem to think that the layout is the way it is because people just threw stuff into the first place they could think of. Learn why it's the way it is, then come up with a good reason why the original reasons are no longer good, and only then there can be a sensible discussion of the subject.

Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

If I wanted OS X, I'd use OS X. Your idea isn't new, and has been discussed hundreds of times before. That Ubuntu still keeps the old layout should be a hint.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

Thank you for a well-thought out reply. However, I'd like to point out that I was already well aware of why things are the way they are; I just don't agree with the reasons anymore. I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized. Even if you want to share packages between different users, symlinks provide a much better way to make applications visible within their own home directories without taking up massive amounts of space - and without losing the benefit of giving each user his own set of preferences, or being able to store the packages on a networked drive. As for the reasons why Ubuntu keeps things the way they are, my guess is they don't want to change thousands of packages, rather than holding any firm believe in things being better as they are. And didn't OS X start out from a UNIX core? The fact that Apple made this change is also a hint.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[kestasjk]

If you want everything in its own folder under an /Applications folder it's easy to do with apt, or any other modern package manager, but it wouldn't improve anything.
Okay, programs are "centralized". This means that they're grouped according to application, and in most other UNIXes files are grouped according to whether they're libraries, manuals, binaries, etc. It's mostly an aesthetic choice.

Note that Windows has had a "Program Files" folder since before OS X, but I don't hear anyone singing the praises of "Program Files" even though it groups files by application in the same way as OS X. Personally I don't see a big advantage either way (and I definitely don't see "Apple is doing it, so we should too" as a good reason).

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Fallingcow]

Both the OSX and Linux ways are good, IMO. OSX: every program and all its components are in a folder. Linux: this sort of program file goes here, this sort here, and you can mount these folders from various sources to achieve all kinds of neat administrative voodoo.

Either CAN be broken, but usually isn't. They're fairly consistent.

Windows? Let's see: how about we make a folder in "Program Files"... let's name it after our company, then make a sub-folder for each program from us! Yeah! Never mind that in three years we'll somehow manage to slightly change the company name we use on the folder by adding a dash or changing capitalization or something, and that "one folder for all our programs" goes out the window. Oh, and let's throw some DLLs in c:\windows\win32, AND write a bunch of stuff to the registry. Then, let's put a whole bunch of links in the START menu, with no regard for any categories already there (for god's sake, there's a GAMES folder in the XP start menu for a REASON, people!)

Completely inconsistent.

The first two are fine; even if I don't like the way they do things, I can always script around CONSISTENT stupidity. Inconsistent stupidity? Not so much.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[swillden]

I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized.

Why? Given a decent package manager (and Ubuntu has an excellent one), what does it matter?

Here's a data point for you -- my wife's iBook is off for repairs (and Apple appears to have lost it since it's been gone for two weeks) -- so she's using Gutsy on a Thinkpad I had lying around. She quite likes OS X and is very comfortable with the drag'n'drop installation approach, but she was very impressed by Ubuntu's Add/Remove Software app, and commented that Apple should do something like it.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dan the person]

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration.

Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[domatic]

Here's a hint: Only "dimwitted juvenile punks" use such language in response to polite reasoned posts.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[jedidiah]

Loser.

The standard open platform is already there.

Not only is it already there but it is also shared with every other Unix.

Why break compatability with EVERYONE ELSE? Just because you don't like
our organizational scheme? It's not "disorganized". It's just not how
you would personally set it up.

Organized contrary to your personal preferences != disorganized.

Personally, I think not keeping my own personal preference files
in my own file space is completely assinine. I should not even
have to be aware of the filesystem outside of my own home directory.

NextStep style app directories are fine for this so long as they
don't muck around with sensible user data practices. Although Unix
already has a comparable fs hierarchy for that sort of layout anyway.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

How much would it cost to pay you to just go the fuck away?

If you give me a million euro's I promise I won't log on to Slashdot again. Please?

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Warui Kami]

This $appdir/ setup you mention was done in UNIX-style OSes once upon a time (and still is), and every one of these $appdirs was kept in one place: /opt.

I have a .profile I used on Solaris machines for something like ten years that had several for loops for setting up the $PATH, $MANPATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and so on, by looping through /opt/*/{bin,man,lib}. While the /opt setup has certain advantages of separation of applications from each other, it creates a messy operating environment. You have a list of applications (`ls /opt`) and can uninstall any of them (`rm -rf /opt/$app`) using standard file management tools. Package management provides these advantages of /opt, by giving you a list (in synaptic, dselect, `rpm -qa`, etc.) without the disadvantage of having a 5k $PATH. If you compile your own software and are too lazy to create a package, you install into an area meant for that (/usr/local) most of the time. Admittedly on systems with net-mounted /usr, /usr/local has another purpose, but we can safely ignore that in 99% of cases, as the two are not incompatible.

One of my housemates built a linux system that relied on loopback fs images, mounted and combined with unionfs. He had basic packages that would be loaded into the unionfs, and the file trees merged. Then, the only files on the only rw branch of the union were config files he had changed, and his home directory. It was an absolutely fascinating system, and there were scripts for hot-loading new packages, with some restrictions on unloading due to the nature of unionfs (which he had hacked the kernel to get this functionality). When he started talking about creating a package manager, the discussion really ended with us saying he had just changed where the abstraction level of standard package managers was and the only real advantage was that altered files were in a separate filesystem, and easily sorted through. All the other advantages of the system are the same as in, for example, debian. You don't need to touch any files, or know where they'll be, to install OO.o, you just install the package, and everything is interleaved into your filesystem for you.

Naively creating a /Applications directory and thinking it will make everything better and easier ignores the vibrant history of UNIX. I wish more people would learn how and why modern package management came about. It is incredibly powerful, and one of the things that Linux systems have over Windows, rather than vice versa. The 'Add and Remove Programs' control panel is a cheap imitation, and per-program installers a serious downside to the platform.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[LWATCDR]

"There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple)"
The Amiga often stored files in the lib directory. Well library files anyway.
I actually think that that Linux's / Unix's file structure is a huge mess. It has mutated over the years and I just don't like it.
OS/Xs is actually an interesting idea And I think there is a Linux type system that uses something like that.
But the /Preferences idea does make me stop and thing. How do yo deal with user specific settings? I have not used OS/X much at all so I don't know.
Do they have sub-directories like /Preferences/USER ?
And then you have the idea of why not store the preferences in a database like SQLLite? The downside would be that you could corrupt all your settings if the database went south but it would allow an easy way to have nested preferences.

The real reason that Linux isn't going to go that way is because of inertia. There is already too many programs that will not work that way. What you will have is an even bigger mess.

That is one of the many reasons why I am more than a little sad that Windows and Linux have pretty much killed new ideas in OS design.
I doubt that we will see a clean sheet of paper OS for the desktop or server space for a very long time.
I don't think anybody wants to toss away all those working applications anytime soon.
Pretty much the same reason we are stuck with Windows, and X-Windows. Because they work.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Just Some Guy]

If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application.

And the tradeoff is that you have to add /usr to your backups because 512KB on that 8GB partition is now local-created data and not easily recreated by a reinstall. Also forget mounting /usr read-only for security purposes.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Problem solved always use either (depending on source and in order of preference)

1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing)
2. dpkg
3. checkinstall

Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has no central way to manage updates.

Thus, proposal rejected.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dave420]

Then Linux will never break through and topple Windows. Great work.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Works fine on my desktop. Have fun with your OS.

No OS fills everyone's needs, competition is good and healthy, as is a good vision of what an OS should be and the needs it should fill.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[baadger]

> App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

This is a fucking terrible idea. The Linux/*nix file system layout IS CLEAN.

All your user apps are in /usr/bin, what is wrong with that?
All your user libraries are in /usr/lib, what is wrong with that?
All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either), is in /usr/libexec, what is wrong with that?

If you shove everything in an "/App" dir you're going to end up with a massive symlink fiasco so all your apps can find shared libraries. Or do you want to do away with shared libraries?

In fact the only thing I agree with you on is that config files should be put in your home directory in a more structured manner, along the lines of the rest of the well structured / file system.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gclef]

There's one problem with this: Patches. One of the truly lovely things about a package manager is that it becomes your one-stop place for patches to all applications on the system. Once you leave the package manager, and have users dumping .app files randomly onto their system, you have no good way of getting patches for those apps. This dramatically weakens the security of your system.

I can see wanting a way for little userland apps (that are unlikely to ever get patches anyway) to install in for just one user. But for big, system-wide things (like a browser, or OOo) a free-for-all /Application directory is a really bad idea.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gclef]

According to the earlier post, removal of an app is as simple as deleting a folder, and addition is as simple as dropping a set of files into a folder. The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.

Also, I don't think I want applications specifying their own patch sources. Large organizations *certainly* *don't* want their applications specifying their own patch sources.

In the end, this is about control of software installation: where does it reside? For folks that just use their systems in a home, you want the end user to have that control. For people trying to manage hundreds of them at a time (which I do), you really don't want the end user to have that control - you want it centrally managed. Apple has come down squarely on the home user side, and Ubuntu is trying to walk the tightrope between the two. What's "better" depends on where you sit.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

<sarcasm>

* switch binaries to PE executables with .exe file extension

* change directory delimiter from / to \

* identify partitions with a single-letter name followed by a colon, before the file path

* change "home" to "Documents and Settings"

* move applications to "Program Files" folder

* replace symlinks with "shortcuts" with a .lnk file extension, which point to the linked file only when double-clicking it in the file browser, and cannot be used as a "virtual" file

* ignore bugs

</sarcasm>

Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA PSK

[theshowmecanuck]

It needs to allow the use of any mainstream Wifi chip set. Otherwise it will remain on the fringe. Hard wired connections to the internet are going away and people don't want to learn about chipsets and pull open packages at the store to see if the 'right one' is on the wireless card they want to buy. And if they can't figure out how to make native drivers work, they need to add a fool proof (read drag and drop easy) way of adding the windows drivers to the system. Without having to manually edit config files.

I would also suggest it allow you to install dual boot on a system with sata raid and running windows. I want it to recognize the raid and install on the partition I set up without screwing around. (Hey propeller head, I don't want to hear about how windows sata raid is fake... I don't give a shit... on windows I have a raid array and want to install Linux. If you don't want me or anyone with 'fake' raid to try out Linux, keep up the current attitude and stay in the fringe.)

Re:Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA P

[theshowmecanuck]

not drag and drop easy... how do you install a package if it is running from the cd? I've used Linux for almost 10 years. But I am tired of having to work like hell to get stuff that should just work to work. I want to use the tool not build it. At one time Linux wasn't just about using a tool (the OS) it was about building and playing with the tool. I'm not into that part anymore. If I want to program a business app on a computer, I want to program the business app. Programming today is starting to be too much about configuring a million different frameworks to work together... so much so it is a pain in the ass. I don't need to worry about having to continually build and configure my OS too. :)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[tuffy]

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

Which user? One could expand it to /Preferences/user1/settings and so forth, but how is that better than /home/user1/.settings ? Having all the .settings files in a home directory means that backing up, restoring and transferring /home saves all those files at the same time. Thus, it is less fragile than storing them anywhere else.

In short, /Preferences is a stupid idea.

OS X is a bad model

[m2943]

Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. /Application directory

Software installation and uninstallation is a mess on OS X: some applications are drag-and-drop, others use an installer. There is no standard way of uninstalling software, no way of figuring out what modifications a piece of software made, and no way of tracking dependencies.

/Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

OS X applications don't store preferences in /Preferences, they store it in a messy hierarchy in ~/Library. Just think of .something as ~/Library/.../something.

An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout

I think that's just what you're used to. Personally, I don't particularly like OS X layout, and XCode's GUI builder is a nightmare.

Ubuntu is imitating some of the good parts of OS X: simplicity, nice visual effects, etc. But Ubuntu's underlying technologies--installers, runtimes, libraries, window management, etc.--are superior to Apple's.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[EsbenMoseHansen]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

We have this. It's called "deb packages". Works like a charm.

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to

You mean /application... no need to use capitals. Anyway, I don't see the advantage over the current system. I don't really care where packages are stored, that is my package manager's job. Oh

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

You mean /preferences :p Anyway, that sounds like a horrible idea. Cleanup after users would get more messy and quotas too. But putting them under ~/.prefs/... might not be a bad idea. There is some merit there, but not an easy thing to change!

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layo

Hmm..I think OSX apps looks terrible, while KDE apps are the cleanest. But all three are quite usable, so I don't see this as a priority. And technically, it isn't the interface building tool's job to layout widgets, that would be horrible! Just imagine what happens when the font changes, or the resolution.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[itzdandy]

this could be handled with a FUSE module pretty easy! have a list of acceptable config files to use tucked away in "fuse-configurator's" settings and have it mount all the acceptable config files that exsist in ~/ to /home/username/Settings. the list is so that some random . file isnt put in the Settings directory.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ndogg]

You might want to check out GoboLinux [gobolinux.org]. They're actually trying to do some of the things you mentioned.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[rantingkitten]

Actually I prefer having the dotfiles in the home directory. Maybe I'm weird like that, but they don't bother me, and the average user will certainly never need to bother with them. On the up side, I can leverage it to quickly restore any machine to my personal preferences. Once I tar my home directory, all I have to do is put a CD in a new machine, ignore it for 20 minutes, come back, untar my directory, then let apt do its thing for all the applications I care about. One hour later and I'm back and running a machine configured to my exact preferences. Yes, I realize that if all preferences were in a dedicated folder elsewhere I could do that, but it's just one more thing, and I don't see any benefit, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[TiggsPanther]

What I'd like to see is a combination of the two. Yes, having all preferences in one place would be nice. Yes, having them all in your home directory is useful. But it's not and either-or scenario. Something like /home/fred/.dotfiles/ (or .prefs, .settings, etc) would keep the home directory tidier whilst still keeping programs' user settings in the home directory structure.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[delire]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

Firstly it's clear you're talking about emulating OS\X, an installation method I certainly wouldn't like to see as default in any Linux environment near me. I don't want duplicate libraries throughout my (equivalent) ~/Applications directory where they could all be using the same shared library. It's bloated and needless and culls off any chance of a centralised package management system: when on an OS\X system this is something I miss dearly (Fink and Darwin Ports both seem broken and have only a few thousand packages compared to Debian).

Making a ZIP or even ISO (like DMG) with all the libraries statically linked in on Linux is fairly easy and there are already projects which offer this [cnr.com]. Why aren't they popular? Perhaps people that try Linux actually find they prefer a system of centralised, security-audited, version-controlled software-management, one that removes the need to go to trawl around websites to find and download software. Having used Debian systems for many years, the 'old' way of aquiring and managing software seems unncessarily backward and time-consuming. I simply don't have the time or interest to upgrade all the software on my system piece by piece, site by site. Yuk. Who would prefer this after using the apt-get update && apt-get upgrade AKA 'drink-beer-instead' method.

Secondly people that believe that libraries and config files on Linux are "scattered all over the filesystem" only point out their lack of understanding - or willingness to understand - why a Linux filesystem is structured as it is. The next time you're on a Linux machine, I thoroughly reccommend giving yourself a little education on the topic by typing the following command into a terminal:

man hier

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[hswerdfe]

you might be interested in this:
  * http://www.gobolinux.org/ [gobolinux.org]

Its an interesting project, its not for the mass market yet but if they got some time and money they might be able to make it ready for the mass market.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Warbothong]

"Application bundles" aren't needed. Ubuntu has a package manager which handles installing and things, which means that the second point is also invalid. Packages have tons of metadata, which makes them much easier to sort, filter, find, etc. than an arbitrary hierarchy. A good improvement would be to build interoperability into the different package management systems used by different Operating Systems, since it is technically possible and would be a nice thing to have. Also, applications can just be run from a folder on some kind of removable drive if wanted. On your "/Preferences" point, Ubuntu has a folder called ".config" in users' Home folders where settings are stored. I think that having users' settings in their Home is good, since they can be potentially all be on different filesystems and moved between machines (ie. I have my Home folder on a USB hard drive). An improvement would be to get more applications to use the .config convention. GNOME has some pretty in-depth Human Interface Guidelines, I'm pretty sure KDE does too. I'm sure that if such changes were added to them then you would change your post to say "* Get rid of all of the unused space in virtually every Linux app, it wastes screen real estate" (a phrase I rank up there with "bling bling" on the cheese-based scale of nightmare induction) In short, different does not mean better or worse than. It means different. Personally I have been using Linux systems for years, and whenever I'm forced to use a Mac I want to throw it at a wall (which probably wouldn't cause too many problems, since the owner'd just say "Thanks, I've been looking for an excuse to blow masses of cash on a replacement now that Leopard is out", and I am actually not kidding). For all of those Mac fanboys out there all I have to say is this: Call me when your idolised OS will run on my laptop without your idolised company suing my ass (the "I run Windows too" get a mac adverts make me literally shout my frustration. Microsoft don't sue people for running their system on the computer they want to, Apple do so why do they come out as the good guys?)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[rmdir -r *]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to

Its being worked on, see Glick and Klick. There is also merit to the current system, which allows for stupidly easy maintenance of large amounts of programs. I expect the final solution will be a bit of a hybrid.

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

Err... there is /etc for global settings, and ~/.config for user-specific. Why would you store per user settings globally? What's the point? The home directory solution instantly solves all namespacing issues, and cleanly.

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout

Not everyone likes NeXT.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[PrescriptionWarning]

Installing software via Ubuntu's Add/Remove app is the greatest thing, way better than dragging to install. I still can't figure out how to uninstall some of my OSX apps that were installed into the control panel instead of in the apps folder :P

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Gryle]

...it would be nice to see some flavour of Linux adopt a sensible, user-friendly way of installing software.
For Debian-based systems in GNOME, open the Synaptic Package Manager, find the software you want and mark it for installation. The Manager will even find and install the necessary dependencies. There's also KDE version known as Kynaptic. In Ubuntu, there's an "Add/Remove" program under the Applications menu that functions the same way, except with pretty pictures. I'm really not how much more sensible and user-friendly software installation can get.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[baldass_newbie]

Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of.

You could say that's because they had more ground to cover, but they still lag (Gnome, KDE or Enlightenment.) Package handling is still an issue and NOTHING is easier than the OS X drag and drop. Synaptic is nice. Very nice. Best thing I've seen in Linux since pkginstall on Slack.

I also disagree with your '12 month' assessment. The big strides take longer and are an accumulation. Perhaps you've just come to realize some functionality, but a lot of it has been there in one form or another all along. I've seen no great leap in the last year that I could point to re:usability. And yes, I'm writing this from a Linux b0x3n.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[jedidiah]

Once you start getting larger systems and need to manage cross
application dependencies, a drag+drop centric solution just
doesn't cut it anymore. And really it doesn't gain you anything.
It would be just as easy if the click or drop or whatever
triggered a proper package manager.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Greg_D]

Yes. Unless the software is not maintained in a repository. Then the average Ubuntu user has no clue whatsoever how to install that software.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:visual refresh

[Gregb05]

ctrl+alt+backspace?

please get your facts straight

[m2943]

Is anyone really going to miss the stupid sticky note or photo apps in the default install?

In fact, in the default install, there are no Microsoft libraries installed with Mono. All that is installed is ECMA C# and the various Gnome-C# bindings. Those are no more susceptible to patent threats from Microsoft or anybody else than gcc, Gnome, or KDE.

And, yes, people use f-spot and Banshee.

The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats

Why don't they remove C, C++, Objective-C, Firefox, Ext3, Java, Compiz, and the entire Linux kernel while they are at it? All of those are potentially threatened by patents, from Microsoft, Apple, Sun, and lots of other companies.