To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This.
What Ubuntu was good at when it started was what I call integration, which could also be stated as "We took time to see that these things actually worked" instead of just compiling and shipping. This was refreshing at the time, but they never followed through on that initial promise.
A Linux system could be as nice as Mac OS X. All you need to do is hire a half dozen developers and some testers and designers and sit down with a set of functionality you want and a specific set of packages and bang on it until everything is nice, then ship it. What you can't do is package $everything and you can't ship unpatched close-to-upstream things if the upstream isn't willing to accept patches that make their app integrate better on just your system.
It's a lot of work and a lot of effort and when you're done you'll have laughably out of date versions of your software, since it will take months to properly refine each release. You'd have to have the balls to not care about this and keep focusing on a minimal feature set and high quality. It could have been done at any time in the last ~5-10 years. It hasn't been and it probably won't be, but there you are.




Member since:
2005-11-10
What are you talking about? Just three years ago we were arguing how iOS had *no* consistency with anything before it.
Apple are successful because they pay attention to the details and don't just say "ship it" unless it has been thoroughly scrutinised. Other companies rush themselves too much and sacrifice everything to get it out quickly. Apple do not rush (the iPad was started _before_ the iPhone).
The web has succeeded and that's about as un-uniform and inconsistent as it gets.
Linux on the desktop doesn't need consistency, it needs to stop shipping half-baked products. Every time I boot the latest Ubuntu, I am able to find show-stopping user experience bugs within 15 minutes.