This is indeed pretty obvious when you look at Unity era ubuntu screenshots. The typeface and text rendering is unmatched to this day. And to this day nobody pulled off purple-orange like they did.
But I always had the feeling that even at their peak, they were spread too thin to go through with their vision. The DE looks stunning but the rest of the system apps carry too much gnome-isms that would've gone through extra 1-2-3 design passes if they had the means.
Now I use KDE, it's extremely functional, and broadly looks like how I'd design a desktop. But when I select ubuntu as the typeface, a part of me longs for that purple-orange.
> Anything design-y was “too Apple” and unacceptably bourgeois.
That was definitely the case of the Unity desktop that really only worked well on netbooks. That's when I lost confidence in Ubuntu for design. Loss in Canonical on the whole came later.
Weirdly, there was already a good GNOME photo app written in Mono since the mid 2000s (F-Spot, originally by Ximian), though I believe gThumb remained the default in most distros until it began to be replaced by Shotwell at some point in the 2010s.
I don't agree with everything Ubuntu did in that time period but shooting down the idea of creating yet another competing app, rather than improving one of the existing options, sounds fairly reasonable to me.
> A memorable example: we proposed a beautiful new default photo app and it got triumphantly shot down because it was written in C#, and Mono was obviously a Trojan horse from Microsoft.
I would've shot it down too. Not because of some "Trojan Horse" bs, but because Mono is a huge dependency which doesn't vibe with the rest of the environment. It's not appropriate for a default app in a standard Linux distro. You could just as easily replace "Mono" with something like "Java", and it would've been shot down equally triumphantly. The fact that they didn't understand this when they proposed the idea shows you how little they knew of the Linux ecosystem, and the fact that they're still bringing up so many years later shows that they haven't learnt anything even after all this time.
And given their enthusiasm for DHH and that overrated "distro" of his, I'm inclined to believe @dvdsgl is one of those people... sigh.
> The fact that they didn't understand this when they proposed the idea shows you how little they knew of the Linux ecosystem, and the fact that they're still bringing up so many years later shows that they haven't learnt anything even after all this time.
The fact that they didn't ask "why?" at the time is also telling (or they didn't listen or remember, whatever reason it's not in this anecdote). They expected the greybeards who had been maintaining this shit for years to shut up and accept whatever shitty proof-of-concept looked good in a screenshot.
>He hired real designers
This is indeed pretty obvious when you look at Unity era ubuntu screenshots. The typeface and text rendering is unmatched to this day. And to this day nobody pulled off purple-orange like they did.
But I always had the feeling that even at their peak, they were spread too thin to go through with their vision. The DE looks stunning but the rest of the system apps carry too much gnome-isms that would've gone through extra 1-2-3 design passes if they had the means.
Now I use KDE, it's extremely functional, and broadly looks like how I'd design a desktop. But when I select ubuntu as the typeface, a part of me longs for that purple-orange.
> Anything design-y was “too Apple” and unacceptably bourgeois.
That was definitely the case of the Unity desktop that really only worked well on netbooks. That's when I lost confidence in Ubuntu for design. Loss in Canonical on the whole came later.
Weirdly, there was already a good GNOME photo app written in Mono since the mid 2000s (F-Spot, originally by Ximian), though I believe gThumb remained the default in most distros until it began to be replaced by Shotwell at some point in the 2010s.
I don't agree with everything Ubuntu did in that time period but shooting down the idea of creating yet another competing app, rather than improving one of the existing options, sounds fairly reasonable to me.
> A memorable example: we proposed a beautiful new default photo app and it got triumphantly shot down because it was written in C#, and Mono was obviously a Trojan horse from Microsoft.
I would've shot it down too. Not because of some "Trojan Horse" bs, but because Mono is a huge dependency which doesn't vibe with the rest of the environment. It's not appropriate for a default app in a standard Linux distro. You could just as easily replace "Mono" with something like "Java", and it would've been shot down equally triumphantly. The fact that they didn't understand this when they proposed the idea shows you how little they knew of the Linux ecosystem, and the fact that they're still bringing up so many years later shows that they haven't learnt anything even after all this time.
And given their enthusiasm for DHH and that overrated "distro" of his, I'm inclined to believe @dvdsgl is one of those people... sigh.
> The fact that they didn't understand this when they proposed the idea shows you how little they knew of the Linux ecosystem, and the fact that they're still bringing up so many years later shows that they haven't learnt anything even after all this time.
The fact that they didn't ask "why?" at the time is also telling (or they didn't listen or remember, whatever reason it's not in this anecdote). They expected the greybeards who had been maintaining this shit for years to shut up and accept whatever shitty proof-of-concept looked good in a screenshot.
And now everyone ships Electron crap instead with their Linux applications, talk about progress.