18.04 Bionic - Changes to default layout

Development Discussion
#14

[quote=“Misko_2083, post:12, topic:15985, full:true”]
…I still fail to see why is this so important. Anyone can restore the original menu in a few steps and save a custom layout…[/quote]

That is because you have failed to understand (or pretended to fail to understand) the problem I have outlined. The problem is not the change in and of itself. Devs are at liberty to take a distro in whatever direction they wish. The problem is one of dishonesty in communication with users. Namely, in the carrying out of an explicit consultation with users on the specific issue of change from the standard menu to the Brisk menu as default. The overwhelming result of that consultation was that users did not wish for the menu to be changed.

Following the consultation, a great show was made about how the dev team would respect the wishes of the users and so the change would not be implemented. And yet, here we are, several months later and precisely such a change is being implemented with no formal notification whatsoever. The only reason it is being discussed is due to a user noticing it on the 18.04 daily build and then posting about it on here.

To repeat, since you obviously did not comprehend the words in my post the first time around, I don’t actually have a problem, in principle, with devs on a particular project having their own distinctive vision that they intend to pursue and where they expect users to follow where they lead. Just so long as that is made clear to users from the outset. Some users may like the changes and some may not. But, that’s life and, most importantly, the process is transparent and nobody is deceived.

But, in pretending to consult users but then quietly ignoring the result of that consultation once debate has died down, people have been deceived and no amount of obfuscatory posts, of the type which your last one typifies, will change that.

…You mentioned “new users”.
The problem with the windtendo-users/linux-wannabes is that they are so tied to wintendo like with an umbilical cord.

Gnu/Linux has a different philosophy, it’s a different way of seeing life.
There will certanly be videos on YouTube and instructions on this forum on how to do this. If after all of that, they feel discomfort to make a few simple steps to restore the menu, then they certainly should go back to wintendo…

As a previous poster has already noted - oh the irony.

6 Likes
#15

In case anyone wonders where that poll was -- it's here:

To be clear, I'm just the developer for web/Welcome/Boutique related stuff, I don't actually develop MATE itself or touch other pieces of code for Ubuntu MATE.

I'll be here to defend the corner to ensure Traditional sticks to its values. It's more so that one of the objectives of Ubuntu MATE is:

Recreate the halcyon days of Ubuntu for users who prefer a traditional desktop metaphor.

This change would've resulted in "Menu, Places, System" which sounds like a Frankenstein... "Applications, Places, System" with simple drop-down menus is a very nice characteristic of MATE. :slight_smile:

I agree with @stevecook172001 that I too personally don't mind the default changing when it's for the better, but I suppose there has been no announcement as there hasn't been an Alpha release yet. 18.04 is still in development and it looks like it was an experimental change.

Development wise, it has been reverted for technical reasons I believe, especially if you consider users will be upgrading from 16.04 -- the experience should be as smooth as possible.

I too would not expect to see a "Traditional" layout that presented Brisk... that would be a lie. :slight_smile: If it was called something like "Traditional: Supercharged" and set as the default, I'd be OK with that.

6 Likes
#16

Precisely.

To absolutely reiterate here - even though such a change being made would be despite the result of that consultation, it could still be implemented honourably if two things pertain:

  1. The new default menu, whatever components it is comprised of eventually, does not pretend to be the traditional menu. But is, instead, given another name

  2. The proper, traditional Mate menu layout of Applications/Places/System is explicitly offered as one of the layout options in Mate Tweak and retains its proper title of “Traditional Mate (Gnome2-like) Layout”

5 Likes
#18

So I see now this is not a technical issue, though it was discussed at some stage in the thread.
The thread mentioned by Iah7 is about the promise not to change the default layout in 17.10.
I could not find the thread about 18.04, so I guess there wasn’t one.

Nevertheless, it’s a cheap shot not to have a new open discusion with the community about the changes in LTS while knowing that the community voted against such changes in the 17.10 and were given a promise not to change.

It’s a matter of thrust.

Is it a big deal on tehnical side? I don’t think so.

You are wrong if you tried to imply that I was trying to obscure the discussion in this thread. My post was not obfuscatory and had nothing to do with the deceived people. It is my opinion based on dealing with many, many people who tried to switch to Gnu software from Win. But that’s another subject for some other thread.

1 Like
#19

Well - if I was wrong, then I apologise for that.

As it happens, I also don’t think it is a technical issue and do think it is a matter of trust.

#20

Would it be possible to select the desktop configuration from the installer, or in the welcome pop-up after installation?

That would appear to square the circle (that the developer wants to introduce new stuff but the users want to stick to old stuff) by making the option to switch to the new more up front - I can understand that it must be rather galling to see new stuff hidden away.

It would also support some nice large pictures of what the various options look like :slight_smile:

Similar facilities have been/are provided elsewhere for “browser ballots” and the like, so this is not even an original suggestion …

1 Like
New default layout in Ubuntu MATE 18.04
#21

That would be great. Q4OS does something similar: every install is minimal and on first boot you get a “desktop profiler” to choose from a full, medium, or barebones selection of apps, as well as themes, layouts and alternative desktop environments even.

Of course this means a user must have access to internet, but keeps the ISO size down and allows choice.

Sorry, off on a tangent there. This may seem like trolling but although anything is possible it remains to be seen what is actually implemented. I’m actually surprised all it took was a few posts to change their minds about the Brisk menu as default, because I always heard UM jokingly referred to as an almost one man show. A stand should be made for what you believe in, or do you cave to “community resistance” after the slightest criticism? Which is it guys?

P.s apologies for any offence caused

#22

This is not about community “resistance” to change per se. Or, to the extent that may be true, it is, I would suggest the least important thing.

It is, of course, true to say that some users, myself included, are not especially happy about a change to the default menu following an earlier consultation where it was clear the majority of users did not want such a change. However, changing the default menu would be quite acceptable, to me at least and, I suspect, other users if (a) it is not some Frankenstein amalgam of the traditional menu and Brisk menu, (b) it is not given the name “traditional” and © the traditional menu is presented as a layout option in Mate Tweak with the title of “traditional (gnome-2-like)” layout. Personally, I am ambivalent about"a". But, “b” and “c” are red lines for me. Not for myself, as it happens, since I am an experienced user. But, for the sake of choice of new users.

The resistance that has been encountered is, I would argue, due variously to (a) the proposed changes not being formally notified to users, (b) the mashing of the traditional menu with the brisk menu and © there not being a transparent and easy (for new users) method of choosing the traditional layout in Mate Tweak.

If those things were in place, I suspect there would be support and/or little resistance. Or, at least, I can certainly say that would be the case for me.

But, that is my final word, now, on this issue. I am currently hogging this thread, it seems, and so my opinion may not, in fact, be typical.

If others feel differently they have every right to say so and and I urge them to do so.

3 Likes
#23

FWIW, my thoughts as an Ubuntu MATE user

  • who never used Linux/Ubuntu/GNOME before Unity and GNOME 3
  • who uses a custom layout at home exclusively (with a vertical panel)
  • but who uses a live USB a lot at work …

My choice would be

  • keep “Traditional” as it was
  • make a new layout with Brisk as the default, maybe just Traditional with Brisk and indicators or maybe more changes (but I’d keep window close buttons on the right).
2 Likes
#24

:mag: Tangent detected:

Welcome is the ideal place for this, I agree we need a selection screen and I’m hoping I’ll have time to build a first run introductory wizard. It has been an idea I’ve noted since 16.10, but… :point_down:

It’s not entirely untrue :wink: Take a look at the commit history of some projects. Welcome/Boutique has definitely been one mostly led by me in recent months/years – which the core of it has been rebuilt from the ground up.

If I may be honest with myself, I’m actually demotivated at the moment. :disappointed: Drained of energy to continue progressing Welcome/Boutique which risks what we want to happen to not actually happen in 18.04 on time. The new Software Boutique was already pushed back from 17.10 to 18.04. :tired_face: (Mind you, I do have a full time job and other projects besides Ubuntu MATE apps)

I’d say it’s just temporary, but I’ve struggled to stay focused for a while now. :snail:

Unfortunately, release deadlines contribute to making this a chore. That’s all due to being an official flavour of Ubuntu. I’m not one to encourage rushing things either.

From the internal development group chat, the technical reason really was because there isn’t a way to cleanly migrate from the menu panel to Brisk. (When upgrading to 18.04)

Though ultimately, @wimpy can only tell you the reasons behind the initial change. Whether it was going to be a surprise announcement or a “we propose this, what do you think?”, who knows… no build of 18.04 is out yet.

I may be considered “part of the team” for my work with Welcome/Boutique, but at the same time, I am just a user and community member who just wants a functional, traditional MATE desktop. I just happen to hear about developments upfront. Personally, I’d strike for delivering the project’s values – at the same time, keeping happy users and addressing criticism… that’s how I conduct my open source work. :slight_smile:

No offence taken here. I can understand the concerns in this topic.

2 Likes
#25

The changes implemented in 18.04 daily were experimentation. I was hoping to field test this idea and solicit feedback in 18.04 Alpha 2 but due to personal reasons, I was unable to meet the deadline to release an image for Alpha 2.

As it happens this topic makes it clear that this would be an unpopular change. I do personally feel that not having a Super key activated menu by default is a misstep since this is a common workflow on many Linux distros/desktop now. I’d also like to point out that a traditional desktop metaphor is not governed by the menu used, but the fact you have a desktop upon which files can be placed.

Experimenting with this idea was useful because it identified that there is no trivial way to migrate the relevant settings for users running 17.10 or earlier to support such a modification to the default panel layout.

I’m sorry that development experimentation has created such bad feeling and called my trustworthiness into question.

9 Likes
New default layout in Ubuntu MATE 18.04
New default layout in Ubuntu MATE 18.04
#26

I did not mind all the changes I like the Breeze cursor theme and since there was no poll I would have no problem with that, if u want to leave it that way i am for it :smiley: I agree not at not having a super key menu is detrimental and I think if there is a way to implement super key usage with the current menu bar that would be great, I use neither the traditional nor Brisk menu, rather the AM menu, but I would like to see an implementation of the Cinna menu is my dream, alhough even withit I would like to change somethings even with it, however I think keeping the traditional menu is best, also something I would like to see in the non menubar mate menu is a search field similar to what is implemented in in the lxqt menu just some thoughts

#27

Ok this is crazy! In the feature i beleave that all the side distros base on ubuntu will need to kill the 32 bit. Then what the users will say! Martin i hate you etc? WTF. At the end of the day no one can make all the users happy, especially a linux user. And someone need to make a decision.

Every day i see users saying that Canonical is Microsoft, nop, Canonical it’s a company, Don’t forget that a ubuntu base os runs on over 80% on the work of Canonical employees kernel, servers,sites etc.

HMM i wanna see in the future users passionate about helping (let me test that and give feedback) , reporting problems (Hey you have a problem here i made a bug report), tutorials (mate interface has move away from x , let me show you how you can have x back on your mate interface) etc.

But noo it’s easier to demand something instead of saying “hey it’s that a good ideea?” “Let’s have a debate” or the most important one “it’s that final or we can have a talk?!?” . But nononono "Firstly, because to not have the standard menu as default is to make a mockery of the “consultation” carried out with users some months back. Why bother consulting users if you intend to ignore their views? " .

What i am trying to say it’s that for the love a good Ask and don’t asume something. Because doing that it’s like … on a dude hard work. This is my and only my opinion.
Have a great day/night!

#28

I wasn’t going to contribute further to this thread, But, I cannot let the above post pass.

Either you are being deliberately dishonest by feigning ignorance of the facts or you you really are ignorant of the facts and should, perhaps, exercise some diligence before shooting your mouth off.

The community didn’t ask and it certainly did not demand. It was offered a consultation and vote on an issue and the result of that consultation was an overwhelming vote in a particular direction.

Speaking for myself, the problem is not the change, per se. The problem is the change in the context of the community having been asked about the change and having rejected it and then having the change potentially occurring anyway irrespective of that rejection without any notice. The only reason this discussion has happened is because a user noticed it on the 18.04 daily build.

2 Likes
#29

Users need to know the diferance between a test/development experimentation/alfa/beta1 stage version vs a beta 2 and a final release. They need to know that not everything that they find in a x stage release it will be in a final one, like kernels, app versions etc. I think that it’s time to educate every one of us about fist of all a stage of dev in this case before we open a forum post like this.
And I personally am not happy with some decisions taken by you or the upstream but I am always able to understand why, benefits, disadvantages and what can help in the future.
Allow me to give an example. Ever since 14.10 I wanted to be something that would lead to a lts / roling release, a kind of Solus. I was not really excited when ubuntu mate became an official Ubuntu member but understood the benefits he brought. Or why we can not have a window list just like the one at xfce where you can set only the icon and not the name of the application etc. Which would have helped to offer a smoother experience to the user and that the system in turn rely heavily on different applications that are no longer supported by the developer one today.

But again I realized that each window list has a different base and that it’s too complicated to enter that setting

#30

Well, then, there was a very easy way that Martin could have legitimately closed down debate on this thread by coming on here, in the early posts of the thread and letting users know this was explicitly experimental and that users would be consulted should it be decided that the dev team wished to implement it.

Or, Martin could have, alternatively started a thread before this thread even needed to exist and explain that, although he offered and provided the initial consultation with the community and, although he understood the wishes of the community in terms of that consultation, he felt so strongly about it that he felt compelled to follow his instincts and, notwithstanding technical hurdles, implement it anyway. This would have been a tough message to deliver. But it would have been honest and would have deserved respect, irrespective of whether or not people agreed with the decision.

Or, the decision to offer a consultation to the community could have simply not have been offered and implemented in the first place. In which case, my earlier points on that stand. They were:

I don’t actually have a problem, in principle, with devs on a particular project having their own distinctive vision that they intend to pursue and where they expect users to follow where they lead. Just so long as that is made clear to users from the outset. Some users may like the changes and some may not. But, that’s life and, most importantly, the process is transparent and nobody is deceived.

#31

Did Martin made a post and told “Hey i made this changes…!”
I am asking because Martin every time makes a post blog about changes!
This is a ALFA stage and not even an official alpha version. All this post it’s =0 because nothing oficial was release.
Let me help you with something. Until March 22th when it’s user interface freez everithing can change.

#32

On a matter where the community was explicitly consulted and offered a vote and where that vote overwhelmingly went one way, then yes, it would have been far wiser to have made a post on it informing the community.

The only way one might possibly make the argument you just have is from a position of dishonesty or ignorance.

#33

Whattttt? I respect your point of view as I respect it for any user but what?

#34

This was told to us only after the fact of implementation of the change, only as a consequence of a user noticing the change and starting a thread on here to discuss it, relatively late on in the thread and only after an initial post early on in the thread where the following was posted:

The changes to the “traditional” layout in Ubuntu MATE 18.04 is intended to offer a familiar look and feel but expose new useful features, such as Super key menu launching and indicators.

As you’ve already discovered, it is trivial to restore the original menu and you can then save that as you own custom layout.

Is it such a departure?

In other words, the initial post made no mention of it being experimental nor of the community being consulted should it be decided to roll it out for real. Secondly, the actual reason it has not been rolled out is apparently due to, in the first instance, technical reasons.