If you’ve checked out Ubuntu’s website lately, you’ve probably noticed that it’s looking pretty slick, especially compared to a few years ago. Here’s a look at how ubuntu.com has evolved over time, and why it matters.
Well designed websites aren’t a forte of the open-source community. There are some exceptions, but many projects have home pages that, although functional, don’t look like they’ve had an aesthetic update since the Windows 95 era. GNU Mailman is an example. Linux.org is another.
Geeks may not care about pretty CSS or flashy javascript as long as they can access a site’s content easily, but there is something to be said for sleek Web design when it comes to appealing to the masses.
Ubuntu.com through the years
On this front, Ubuntu’s website has come a long way in the last couple years. Here’s a look at the home page from August 6, 2007, courtesy of the Internet Archive (since dead links broke the CSS in the Internet Archive’s version of the page, I pieced it back together; for the full HTML, click here):
That’s by no means ugly, but compare it to Ubuntu’s current home page:
The current page is a lot flashier and cleaner, and displays a slideshow of Ubuntu screenshots, which is a great way to show users what the operating system can do.
The positive evolution of Ubuntu’s website is also apparent from the “feature tour” pages created for different Ubuntu releases. Feisty’s page has some screenshots and is decent enough, as is the tour of Ubuntu 7.10. But these pages aren’t as fun or easy to read as they could be, and don’t really look that much better than the HTML I crank out in OpenOffice when I don’t have time to make real Web pages.
With Hardy, a much more impressive tour emerged that gorgeously demonstrated Ubuntu’s new features in a pleasant and engaging way. This remained the standard for 8.10 and 9.04.
The tour for Ubuntu 9.10 takes things to a whole new level, with an exciting layout and loads of attractive screenshots that truly show Ubuntu in action, playing 3D games and a video of non-Free media content.
It would be nice if the screenshots could be viewed in full size by clicking on them, and some screencasts (of desktop effects, for example) would not hurt in order to impress upon potential users the idea that Ubuntu really is on an equal part with Windows and OS X when it comes to doing the things normal people care about.
I’ll keep my eyes peeled for improvements like these when Lucid debuts in April. But even as it stands now, it’s clear ubuntu.com has come a long way since the days of Feisty Fawn.
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
Wonder what they will do for Lucid…
As a manly man, I’m not afraid to say that I love Ubuntu and the philosophy of free software.
Nice icon user icon.
did you notice that the name “linux” does not appear once in the current page?
Is that not to scare the masses, too?
Don’t take it wrong: I like Ubuntu and used it for years. But that’s somewhat surprising and certainly noteworthy.
Francois, I think that the term “Linux” is missing for two main reasons:
1) Canonical wants to keep everyone’s attention focused on their brand. I think that’s pretty much always been the case.
2) Keeping the attention on the Ubuntu name circumvents the problem of how to give a proper balance of credit to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman without choking out a compound acronym that the average user won’t remember and may not be able to pronounce.
Brian:
With regard to 2… it seems the word Ubuntu is already difficult enough to pronounce consistently. Even the attendees of the developer summit can’t agree it seems.
Reference:
matthewhelmke.net/2009/11/17/an-amusing-observation/
[...] The Evolution of Ubuntu.com If you’ve checked out Ubuntu’s website lately, you’ve probably noticed that it’s looking pretty slick, especially compared to a few years ago. Here’s a look at how ubuntu.com has evolved over time, and why it matters. [...]
[...] The Evolution of Ubuntu.com If you’ve checked out Ubuntu’s website lately, you’ve probably noticed that it’s looking pretty slick, especially compared to a few years ago. Here’s a look at how ubuntu.com has evolved over time, and why it matters. [...]
Why is it people make a fuss when a GNU/Linux distribution doesn’t include either GNU or Linux in the branding, but yet they never make a fuss when neither GNU or Linux is absent from marketing materials for products like satnavs or DVD players? There are even a few blu-ray DVD players running Linux. Still no blu-ray support for the average distribution though.
Linux is the kernel. GNU is a host of utilities and tools that make the Linux kernel useful and accessible. But these two parts alone don’t make the whole distribution. There’s a whole lot more goes into Ubuntu than just Linux and GNU.
Canonical are trying to build a business. Their brand is where their focus is. So frankly it’s not very surprising they don’t mention Linux on the main page. The message Canonical wants to get across with http://www.ubuntu.com is they have a useful product to pitch.
who’s making a fuss?
Don’t try to start a flamewar.
That said, there is a definite difference between OS distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora, etc and those product you mention that use linux. The former are actually… operating systems! yes. So they are the thing itself, with, as was noted duly above, some more work to package/patch/provide forums/bug tracking systems, etc…
Whereas there is no direct contact with the OS in the end-user product you mention. Big difference.
I’m very pleased about the removal of Linux from the branding material. The (we) GNU+Linux lovers, have been blowing the horn for too many years, and many years too early. A lot of people were told that “Linux is user friendly” years ago. People tried it, and found that “Linux” was _not_ user friendly.
There is also a point that is easily overlooked. If you try to explain the difference between the different “Linuxes”, you have to explain the difference between the Desktop Environments. Most people aren’t used to having multiple DEs to choose from, so you have to explain that as well. Now, just by using the phrase “Linux”, you’ve opened up lots of questions that cannot easily be answered — and aren’t really relevant — and thus pushes newbies away. Because even if you _can_ explain it, you now seem like such an advanced user, you cannot be trusted when you say it’s user friendly or easy; “easy for you, perhaps”, they’ll say, “but you’re an expert and I’m not. I think I’ll just stick with that other OS for now, thank you”.
Once they’ve made a decision, they will not easily change their minds. This is a double edged sword.
I’m not saying that we should hide GNU+Linux from the new users, I’m just saying that we should delay those explanations until they’ve actually made a choice to go for it. We want Ubuntu to feel safe, easy and inspiring. But once they’ve made the decision, then we should tell them about GNU and Linux and not just Linux. If you say E=MC^2, then everyone knows you’re talking about Einstein, whereas Newton was a guy with an apple or something. But Einstein would not be Einstein without his Newton. You cannot understand Linux without understanding GNU. Don’t forget that.
Getting tired of the source-based, minimal Linux install I’ve liked for years I tried Ubuntu recently. The software quality was poor!
If Ubuntu is an OS then… really I now have less than no reason to prefer it to Windows or OS X. In fact, between my recent experience with Ubuntu and my long-term experiences with trying to tweak and improve desktop Linux in general, I find I have to say if you want a full-featured Unix-based system, get OS X. A little care will deal with any security flaws, you will not lose out in any other way, and, for crying out loud, tweaking the system is easier!
Desktop Linux has wonderfully managed to create under the banner of open source the least modifiable, _least_ _improvable_ desktop environments of any available today. Software quality is scarcely if at all higher than commercial software any more.
Ubuntu has a shiny website… to attract people to WHAT? It makes me want to cry.
This is response to user (eekee) If you are so satisfied with OS X, why on earth are you even on this blog. It really seems that Ubuntu or GNU/Linux for that matter should not even be a topic that you would waste your time with.
As for (Canonical)Ubuntu, everyone is so concerned with Ubuntu replacing Microsoft Windows on the desktop. Who really cares at this point. I understand the value of Ubuntu and the Open Source software that I rely on a daily basis. (Canonical)Ubuntu have given consumers an option other than MS Windows & OS X it is your choice to choose the alternative. If you are happy with what you are currently using, that is also your choice. I just wish people would stop putting misinformation out on the web regarding this subject it is a poor misrepresentation of the product.