Talk:Unity (user interface)

Desktop environment or interface?

There seems to be some real debate about whether Unity should be considered a shell for Gnome, an interface or a new desktop environment that uses Gnome applications. The article has had several edits now to change this back and forth, but we need some reliable refs to come up with an answer. The official Unity website doesn't answer the question. The cited refs, like Proffitt, Noyes and Jackson all call it an "interface". Even Mark Shuttle worth calls in "an interface", as does OMG Ubuntu and even the official Ubuntu Unity package management page on Launchpad. Less reliable WP:SPS refs call it a desktop environment, like Tombuntu. Unless anyone can come up with some better refs I am thinking the article really needs to be moved to Unity interface and the text amended to reflect this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Their website says clearly it is a "desktop and netbook environment". I'm skeptical about calling it an "interface" because that is a very general word, a bit like calling a car a "conveyance". We also don't want to create confusion with interface (computer science), which is something different. We should use specific words that we can bluelink or that readers will be familiar with. Is it a desktop environment, a window manager, a theme? It sounds closest to a DE, although we can describe it as GNOME-derived. Fletcher (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. Even the official pages are a bit unclear. The project page says "Unity provides a complete, simple, touch-ready environment that integrations your applications and your workflow", which seems to use the word "environment" in a very general sense, rather than specifically as "desktop environment". Most DEs, like Xfce, GNOME, KDE or LXDE combine a visual desktop with their own suite of applications with some degree of integration. So far Canonical seems to indicate that Unity will use GNOME applications and just offer a new visual desktop, along with a few new notifications. Perhaps we should just keep and eye on this issue and try to add refs as best we can to support one way or the other at least so it doesn't get changed back and forth in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a shell, not a desktop environment, regardless of what Canonical might say. This article should really be titled "Unity (shell)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.220.179 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What is it?

To me unity looks just like gnome plus a custom application launcher on the left. Is it different in any other ways from ubuntu's gnome desktop? —Darxus (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Yes" what? Yes it's more different? How? —Darxus (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked a Yes/No question. Don't bitch if you get such an answer. ;-) Unity just like GNOME Shell has been written from scratch. Both don't even have desktop icons in their current form. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:KAMiKAZOW - please recall we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. User:Darxus's question was a reasonable one as it could lead to better explanations of the subject in the article text, which I believe are needed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I answered the question. It is not a topic for the article. GNOME, LXDE, and Xfce are also not compared against each other, even though they use the same toolkit (GTK).

Unity is a completely separate shell that just uses GNOME libraries. The article is already quite clear about that. One could write in further detail why Unity development was initiated (I already did that for the German version – someone may feel free to translate it) but the differences between the standard GNOME 2.x GUI and Unity are out of scope for an encyclopedia and a topic for a review. A review of the Ubuntu 10.10 version is available on ArsTechnica, for example. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Ubuntu has decided to create their own proprietary desktop interface instead of continuing along with GNOME development as it had since its inception. Something I don't think any Linux distribution has ever done before, and Ubuntu is, I believe, the most common Linux distribution. I think that makes it very relevent why they chose to create Unity instead of using GNOME Shell aka GNOME 3.0. I realize, obviously, that Unity is a different implementation from GNOME, but I would like to know how Unity is functionally different from just being GNOME with a custom application launcher and Ubuntu's windicators (which are included in the Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick GNOME desktop). Having used it briefly, I don't see the difference. If there is none, that's fine, Ubuntu is free to create their distribution however they see fit. I'd just like to know, and state it clearly in this article. —Darxus (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes Unity different from gnome shell : 1. Unity as of now is much faster than GNOME shell as it is a plugin to compiz, while GNOME shell is a mutter implementation. 2. Unity-Places(both application and file places) and zeitgeist integration to this is another feature exclusive to unity. The Places API is also a feature that makes extensive customization possible. For example there is a Lense to Askubuntu which lists askubuntu search results from the web in a custom unity place 3. Global Menu is absent in GNOME shell. 4. Gnome shell has made some drastic UI changes including removal of window controls which Unity has not embraced. I feel the use of the term proprietary desktop interface is harsh when canonical offers the code freely and allows you to copy it. Only unity team members are allowed to push code directly to the repository. According to me this is a very understandable decision. Being an opensource project Ubuntu can head any direction. --rrohit(talk) 3:17 PM Friday, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

How GNOME Shell has become more similar to Unity

http://digitizor.com/2010/11/16/gnome-shell-then-and-now-or-how-unity-has-influenced-it/

I find this particularly interesting because it seems to cover most of what Shuttleworth stated as reasons for the split from GNOME. —Darxus (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Linking first instance only"

I linked Mark Shuttleworth twice, the second time for the block quote, only because I think people are more likely to think "who is this Shuttleworth guy?" and want a link at that point. Ahunt removed the second link. Shuttleworth is the creator of, benefactor behind, and highest authority for Ubuntu. —Darxus (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well aside from your opinions of Mark Shuttleworth, the normal guidelines on linking is WP:REPEATLINK which says: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." His name is linked the first time it occurs, which is right above the quote. There are exceptions listed but this instance isn't any of those. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Does bzr's "Publishing" count as release?

Personally I think that the publishes listed in https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+publishinghistory should count as pre-releases. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your point is - the infobox indicates the first release was in June 2010, which is also the Launchpad information, although the exact dates don't match, which I will fix. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Unity's first and to this day only actual release was with Ubuntu 10.10 Netbook. To whom are those Launchpad "publishes" released? Normal users via Ubuntu 10.10's online update mechanism? Or are they, as the ref link suggests, development snapshots for Alpha/Beta testers of Natty Narwhal? In that case the publishes count at best only as development releases. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, the answer is "both". Those are public releases through the update system. The very first ones in June 2010 would have been for Ubuntu 10.10 Alpha builds, then Beta and finally on 10 October for the Ubuntu 10.10 stable release, but it was Ubuntu 10.10 that was in alpha, beta etc, not necessarily Unity and in fact none of those are marked as alphas or betas if you click on each package. The Launchpad page shows which Ubuntu version they were for: Maverick or Natty. The version that was released with the formal release of Maverick on 10 October was 0.2.46-0ubuntu4, it remains the stable public release on Maverick today. Not sure if that makes it clearer or not? - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"mutter killed my soul"

Quote from one of the Unity devs (Unity was a Mutter plugin, now it's a Compiz plugin). He also said that GNOME Shell won't be in Ubuntu 11.04 due to dependencies on library versions that didn't make it in, but will be in 11.10 - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/en0ti/i_am_an_ubuntu_unity_developer_ama/ —Darxus (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu 11.04 Alpha2 Desktop.png

Kenny Strawn, you have access to Alpha 2 before the rest of us? http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/natty/ only contains Alpha 1, http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/natty/alpha2 does not exist yet, and the Alpha 2 release date is tomorrow. Oh, I see in your description "near Alpha 2". Probably won't change by tomorrow anyway. —Darxus (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the "Reception Section"

I feel the "Reception" Section of the article is not apppropriate for the encyclopedia for the following three reasons: 1. It only includes the opinions of a few commentators. 2. It does not present a balanced view from both sides. 3. It includes comments for a Preview Version/ Testing Version of a software. Thus I suggesting either improve or complete remove this section. Biased information cause harm to the reputation of a product. And it is better not include it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.13 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriete to include these reviews because all three are cited to reliable third party references, including Ars Technica and OMG Ubuntu. Despite your assertions to the contrary these are not "bloggers", but editorially reviewed publications in both cases and meet WP:RS. In all cases dates are indicted to show at what level of development Unity was at when reviewed. If these seem excessively critical it is because that is what reviewers are writing about Unity. You can't just remove reliably sourced reviews because you don't like what the reviewers say; Wikipedia is not a fan-site. If other reliably referenced reviews can be found, they can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree these contents are more serious than personal blog, but they are not seriously enough to put inside an encyclopedia article. They include opinions by writers, but these opinions cannot be proved to be representable as public's reception. And they cannot be called neutral also. For Ubuntu Unity I do not think it is a good idea to put a reception at this stage because it is still in development. In addition currently there is not enough number of review articles / public survey/ statistics analysis to give a fair judgement on the reception of the product. We can put this section back when the Ubuntu 11.04 has been released and there is a relatively large number of review articles for us to fill in the content. 155.69.2.13 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no requirement for a software reviewer to reflect the views of the public. These are legitmate reviews of a sofware product done by reputable reviewers and published in editorially controlled publications. And they are balanced, did you even read them? The first one by Ryan Paul of Ars Technica says "Our test of the Unity prototype leads us to believe that the project has considerable potential and could bring a lot of value to the Ubuntu Netbook Edition. Its unique visual style melds beautifully with Ubuntu's new default theme and its underlying interaction model seems compelling and well-suited for small screens", His second one includes: "The underlying concepts behind their design are good, however, and they have the potential to be much more valuable in the future as unity matures". The quote from Benjamin Humphrey at OMG includes "let me stress: Unity is not all bad...While a number of the concepts in Unity may be flawed from a design point of view, the actual idea itself is not, and Canonical deserve applause for trying to jump start the stagnant open source desktop with Unity when the alternatives do not evoke confidence.". Just because you personally disagree with what they are saying is not a reason to remove them. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you show that only 3 (three) writer's personal opinion can be considered as a view of the public? Take note that you title of this section is "reception". It will not be a problem if you the section title to "opinions of a few reviewers". So in this aspect it may violate the WP:POV. In fact if you check the comments of these three articles, there are many comments stating opposing the view of the authors.What is more, you include the review of a testing version of the software. Please note that the purpose of the testing is for public to find out and correct bugs, and it is never meant to meet the production quality. It is OK for some magazine article to give some commentary. But it is quite funny that I find such review to appear in an encyclopedia article. Yes the content is verifiable (from an unreliable external source) but it does not meet the standard of an encyclopedia. 155.69.2.13 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no representation that these are the viewpoints of the public, nor is that any sort of requirement for inclusion. As I said you are welcome to add reviews from other reviewers as long as they make WP:RS. I have looked and not found much else that can be added at this point in time. There are lots of WP:SPS, but few relaible sources other than these reviews quoted. These are well-known reviewers in reliable sources. It is also clear that you haven't even read them, as if you had you would know that there are two people quoted, not three. I don't think you have made any sort of convincing arguments to remove these quotes, other than you don't like what they have to say. You need a consensus of editors here working on this page to remove this. We have heard your objections, now let's see if any other editors support your point of view or not. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We don't say these reviewers represent the public in general, so why would anyone assume such? The reviewers only speak for themselves. And is it accurate to say Unity is only in a "testing" stage? Hasn't it already been released for the netbook edition? And it will be released as the default desktop environment in about two weeks. It won't change much between now and then. Fletcher (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite true, Unity has been available as "stable" (non-testing) since October 2010 and one of the reviews is specifically of that stable release. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The review of Unity is mixed. There is some positive and negative reviews. However this section does not seem to present them in a balanced way. While I can add some positive ones into this section to make it more balanced, I find this section becoming increasing lengthy with too much quotations and distract the user from the main content of the article. 155.69.2.13 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read every review I can find - Unity is more a controversy than anything else. Unity has attracted a huge amount of criticism from developers, reviewers and users. It is a good thing that blogs cannot be quoted because there are thousands of them that are critical of Unity, how it works and how it was implemented. I keep looking for positive reviews from any reliable source, but the ones in the article are as positive as I could find. Unity is very controversial software, so if you can find some positive reviews then you are doing better than I am, but slapping a "neutrality" tag on the article isn't suddenly going to make reviewers like Unity. So as a way to move forward I would encourage you to add any reliable source positive reviews you can find and then when you have done that we can shorten and summarize what we have. If you can't find any then I think that shows that the reviews largely agree and the section is as neutral as it is going to get. - Ahunt (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually found a positive review on OMG and have added that, long with a brief intro sentence for the reception section. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

...and I have added quotes on Unity from Mark Shuttleworth to balance it out. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I added those new items to rebalance the section and since there has been no further discussion of this for a week since the initial complaint, I will remove the tag as "problem solved". - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of quotes in 'Reception'?

The reception section seems to be nothing more than the Ars Technica articles with quotations around them. It seems to me that it falls under WP:QUOTEFARM, "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing."

Considering that there is already some discussion over the reception section, I wanted to discuss it here before attempting to make drastic changes to an article section that I only came upon today. If anyone more familiar with the article would like to attempt to shorten the quotes in the section, it would also be greatly appreciated. - SudoGhost (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, good point. Let me see if I can cut the quotes down and summarize them instead. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Distributions?

What major distributions besides Ubuntu feature Unity?--78.48.229.236 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be good to add to the article but as far as I know at this point in time it is just Ubuntu that offers it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

At least Fedora and openSUSE plan to add Unity to their repositories in the future but Unity's dependencies like Compiz are currently so heavily patched in Ubuntu it's almost impossible for them to pick Unity up before the patches go upstream and new versions are released with the patches included in a cross-distro friendly way. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have ref for those distros planning to add it we can put that into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

openSUSE: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2011/02/15/abandoning-unity-for-the-time-being/

Fedora: http://www.happyassassin.net/2010/12/08/unity-hardware-failures-and-f15-qa/

Arch has outdated Unity packages: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42311 – for Unity 2D as well (also outdated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45668

Frugalware: http://wiki.frugalware.org/index.php/Ayatana_Project_Portage

(I wasn't aware of the Unity efforts by Arch and Frugal before reading the comments in the openSUSE post.)

It's late here in Europe. I'm too tired to write proper sentences for the article by myself. Maybe tomorrow if you aren't faster. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey that looks great, thanks for doing all that! I just tweaked the wording a bit. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)