So there was a minor fanfare as Gnome 2.26 was released, with the usual fanboys applauding this as a huge leap forward, proof of why Linux would soon beat out MS with such displays of innovation. I am sure I mentioned I started using Ubuntu on the release of Warty (6.04), and have generally checked out most major revisions since then and do you know what – I have not witnessed a single genuine improvement to the Gnome desktop. Year after year, version after version it looks the same, acts the same, and goes pretty much entirely unchanged.
Zero effort has gone into the desktop look-and-feel. Sure there has been a few minor changes but it is pretty much been static since I first saw it. Gnome reminds me of someone getting a bit of tree trunk, sawing it flat and declaring “I have made a chair, it is perfect”, and while everyone else furiously adds arm rests, padding, fold out leg supports the original chair maker, when questioned about their lack of progress, says “I give you this chair for free, if you don’t like it, fuck off”
But that’s not the worst thing. It’s this:
Gnome is actually just Windows 95 split onto two bars.
It’s the truth.
I often hear it get compared to as a ‘halfway point’ between OSX and Windows. Well it’s not – it has absolutely nothing in common with Apple’s approach. Sure visually you may make that mistake by looking at the bar at the top, but on an Apple system that bar is actually the file menu. On Ubuntu it’s just the start bar at the top.
It’s not even different the for the sake of being better either – it appears to be different for the sake of being different. Given the fact that [citation needed 
] the majority of monitors produced are widescreen, making vertical space lacking, coupled with the fact that 80% of the top bar is entirely unused in 90% of systems it seems stupid not to combine everything onto one bar. It’s not like there isn’t enough space. There are no tangible benefits to the two bar approach, except the ability to pretend like it’s not a shameless rip-off of Windows 95.
Not that there is anything wrong with copying, there is no point ignoring a good idea simply for the sake of it – hell, Linux is a 100% clone of UNIX so it’s not like originality is exactly its thing, but there is a difference between inspiration and plagarism. If you’re going to blatantly copy something at least own up to it, and make an attempt to improve it in some way.
How do I know for sure it’s a copy? There is one thing that gives it away (aside from the curious feature parity). The quicklaunch. I’ve always thought that Microsoft were stupid for putting a link to Outlook on the quicklaunch. IE, yes, I can see that, but a POP3 based client when over half of people use webmail? That’s just silly, and there are far many better candidates for QL status. Yet look at Gnome and what’s on the QL? You guessed it – Web Browser and Email Client. Busted. This is especially stupid considering that it even exists on the Live CD. Who in their right mind would use Evolution on a system with no permanent local storage?
Another good example of the absolute and total lack of attention paid to usability is the whole desktop rearrangement thing. On Windows you simply unlock the taskbar, rearrange the items, then lock it again, while with Gnome you have to manually unlock, move and then re-lock each and every item. It’s incredibly time consuming and frustrating, serves no purpose except on the off chance that you want a few items always unlocked so you can quickly move them about in a hurry. Useful. It also doesn’t feature snapping so you often have a few pixels out all over the place, and simply dragging things always leaves pixel gaps. You have to right-click to move as well!
If you glance at the example on the right you’ll see what is basically the Windows 95 era interface but with different icons. If you take a look at an Apple desktop you’ll notice it looks and behaves completely differently, and would take an extreme amount of effort to get it to work even remotely like Windows, yet bam, in 60 seconds (ten if the rearrange system wasn’t so convoluted) I can make Gnome look and work exactly like Windows. Coincidence I am sure!
As I said I have no problem against plagiarism provided you at least bother to improve things. The only changes I saw in Ubuntu was the space wasting menu bar (after all there is whole entire bar sitting unused – gotta put something there!), and an even more useless power button. In fact the 3-rather-that-1 button start menu approach was tested in the initial development of 95, and rejected due to usability concerns. It’s not new.
Now the point of having an importance (click) hierarchy is to put the buttons that are used the most in the most easily accessible place, and to draw the most attention to the most commonly used. Ever wonder why the Start button says Start? If it was just a Windows logo, people would not really think it that important. Calling it ‘Start’ implies that it is what you click to do things. It is also (in XP anyway) Green, with the rest of the bar as Blue, again to bring attention to it. This is because they actually bothered to think about it. Fitts Law dictates that the easiest places to reach on your screen are the corners. If I want to close a program on Windows I simply flick the mouse to the top right and click. On Gnome you flick the mouse to the top right, onto the aforementioned useless power button, then pull it slightly down to close. Usability Fail.
Why is the power button useless you ask? Pointed out above is the fact that more used options should be more easily accessible. One click to run Firefox is useful, instant access through the system tray is useful. If the taskbar was buried under Windows->Running Programs I am sure a lot of people would 1. never find it and 2. get incredibly irate. Yet the power button sits there plain as day – yet, at the very most, you’ll be using that button once per session. Once. Considering most PC’s come with a power button already built in only adds to the redundancy.
Of course we know the reason it is there. It is the years and years of ‘Windows sucks, you click start to shut down, how unintuitive’ pretty much forced it out of there. Yet that is where it should be. It simply isn’t used enough to warrant the space. The reason ‘Start’ is called start is to get people to pay attention to it as the most important button on the system, where pretty much all other actions stem from. It’s to give it weight. Remember since Gnome is copying Windows it’s relying on the inertia of people that have already learned what the start button is and what it does. The first people to use Windows would have pretty much zero prior knowledge so usability was more important. Trying to come up with a clever put down comes second to common sense and reality.
Stuck In The Past
I know I am repeating myself but it bears repeating: sheer plagiarism is bad, improvement is good. I am currently running Windows 7 Beta as my main OS, and despite disliking change for changes sake, I am willing to accept it and learn provided it is considered ‘worth it’. There are so many little niceties in W7 that you know they have been paying attention to detail. There is no way in hell something as crappy as having to unlock every element individually to move them about would exist in any other modern OS that cared about usability.
For example a great introduction in Windows XP was the rearranged Start Menu (which 99% of (alleged) power users turned off without even trying). It features a neat little feature in that (I set it to 12) of your most used applications would be available in one click without going through the hierarchy. Since it shows more applications than people generally use on a regular basis it means most software can easily be accessed in two clicks, without much searching. Gnome involves rooting around through the hierarchy.
Another useful tool is the instant search. Type anything into the box in the Start menu and it’ll search for it. Want charmap? Just type ‘charmap’ and hit enter. No need to find it or know where it is. It’s useful, it saves time.
New in Windows 7 is instead of having a Recent Documents menu, it has Recent Documents attached to each program, so hovering on Photoshop will show what you last opened with it, same with Word, RDP etc. It’s another nice feature that demonstrates that effort is being put into usability and improvements.
Yet every time I use Ubuntu I see no such improvements. Newer versions of software may be bundled, and things that really should have always worked may be fixed (and lauded as a revolution), but pretty much zero in the usability department. At best there may be a new wallpaper – in fact I remember just a few days ago a thread of loads of people salivating over Ubuntu’s new boot screen – It’s a progress bar, but thinner! Innovative!
Stock Replies
Q: But you can do everything you mentioned in Linux if you use addon xyz.
A: You can get a dock for Windows too, and make it look just like a Mac, but usability, integration and performance is generally horrible. If you can make it so fantastic so easily then why is it not in the stock install? You can rebuff just about every claim using that tactic. Usability is not something you can retrofit with a theme pack. It takes time and effort.
Q: But KDE…
A: It looks exactly like Vista. Glossy black menu bars, Big analogue clocks, an exact copy of the Windows start bar layout (at least they didn’t split it onto two).
Q: Why don’t you fix it then?
A: I am positively brimming with ideas for taking Linux usability forwards. Unfortunately in discussing them you have to point out problems that need to be fixed which causes you to get jumped on by fanboy apologists like a rabid pack of wolves. I’ve been personally insulted before for suggesting things like a bootsplash (to replace the scrolling text) and .deb’s that install by double clicking (without requiring the CLI). My only chance of success is to get my skills in C up to date, and fork Gnome. Not something I exactly have to time to do.
Q: But Gnome and Ubuntu are committed to Usability!
A: Shell and Exxon are also commited to the environment. Claiming something doesn’t make it true. Usability is actually quite involved, subjective and hard to quantify – but it does exist. The problem is more a total lack of understanding and appreciation of usability.
Q: But Compiz…
A: Compiz is a compositing layer. It has pretty much nothing to do with usability, isn’t new and is generally just nicked from other sources – see this video of the wobbly windows effect which was nicked as demonstrated in this 2003 Longhorn demo.
Q: Your not being constructive
A: Your getting personally offended that I am pointing out flaws in a system that you didn’t write, and have nothing to do with except use. Your problem is you are defending the system (Gnome) as it is a physical manifestation of the FOSS ideology. Criticism of the system is taken as criticism of your very values which instantly turns any discussion into a partisan debate. It is you that is not being constructive as you would have no such problem if I were to talk about a Microsoft product in the same manner.
True Innovation is Difficult!
Coming up with something new is incredibly hard, especially when you have already been saturated by a common approach – it can be difficult to see any other way of doing it. Ask any half decent programmer to create Tetris in the morning and you’d probably have a fairly workable game by mid afternoon. Ask a programmer to make a new, inventive, puzzle game and you’d be lucky to have something decent after six months.
The 100% focus on bugzilla (which will never yield anything innovative by its very nature), and the fact that criticism is pretty much forbidden (see the Q+A), coupled with the fact that since the distros repackage software the actual developers have near nil contact with their users and you have bred an environment that pretty much denies that usability and user experience even exist, let alone actively takes steps to improve.
If anyone wants to have an honest discussion about ideas, I am well up for it. If you just want to ‘debunk’ me and tell me I am wrong then go away – your only hurting the cause you allege to support.
