The next version of the world’s most popular desktop Linux operating system (that’s Ubuntu, for those of you playing dumb) will come with less software available out-of-the-box.
Current daily builds of Ubuntu 23.10 instead ship a minimal platform pre-populated with just a handful of apps. These cover only the most basic of basic computing needs.
For anything else the idea is that we, the user, fire up the Software Store (though the new one isn’t included yet) and install what we want ourselves.
As an idea, it’s not without merit.
But in practice, I think it’s a potential misstep.
Contents
Basic as a Feature
For those new to the distro the stock Ubuntu 23.10 experience is… Interesting.
New user downloads Ubuntu 23.10 (possibly trying Linux for the first time) after hearing about how much better it is than Windows or macOS. After installing it they boot up and login in and…
Soon discover it doesn’t do much – certainly not as much “out-of-the-box” as the closed-source system they just switched from.
They can’t create, edit or open any office files; they can’t scan documents; they can’t check their webcam works; they can’t analyse disk space; they have to listen MP3s in a video player (whose developer says shouldn’t be used for music); heck, they can’t even crop a photo.
As first impressions go, it’s not an awfully good one!
“C’mon Joey, it’s 2023 – most of us only need a web browser anyway”, some of you will say.
And you have a point (which I’ll talk more about a little later).
But as a sheer value proposition, does this minimal Mantic install provide a better end-user experience (or give the impression of a being modern, capable OS) than the one it replaces?
I don’t think it does.
Pick Your Own Apps, You Lazy Animal
For as long as I’ve been using Linux I’ve seen people say: “Instead of distros shipping with a bunch of software I don’t use, it should let me pick the software I want”.
Superficially, this approach sounds reasonable. My favourite music player probably isn’t your favourite, and your favourite isn’t Alan’s (he is reading, I promise). Ergo, why should a distro make a choice on our behalf when it could leave the decision to us, from the get-go?
Putting aside the fact that we’ve always been able to install the software we want, of course.
Offering a complete end-user experience in a single download is, I’ve no doubt, what helped make Ubuntu the juggernaut it is today. Opinionated software choices have always been opinionated. Nothing shipped on Ubuntu’s ISO has ever been everyone’s favourite app (sorry, Ekiga).
To me, a considered and comprehensive set of software is part of what makes a desktop Linux distro a desktop Linux distro.
So unless people are returning Dell Ubuntu laptops or re-installing Windows because they can’t cope with Thunderbird or Simple Scan being on their systems — which we all know is unlikely — the decision to remove so many useful apps for everyone seems reactionary.
Will new users know what apps they need?
It’s easy to install apps on Ubuntu, of course.
And although the new Flutter-based Software Store targeted to land in 23.10 lacks Flathub support (and thus access to huge number of useful apps) it does, in testing builds, greatly improve app discovery.
But do average users — the kind who make up a fair chunk of Ubuntu desktop’s 6-million strong user base — want to go through the hassle of hunting down apps? Won’t they find it a bit of a chore? Windows doesn’t ask them to, nor does macOS, or even Chrome OS. Why should Ubuntu?
Plus, the “choose your own apps” adventure also assumes average users know what apps they need, and can overcome choice paralysis when searching for, say, “office” and seeing a long list of results that, save for any recognisable brand names, mean very little:
Installing 12 different office suites to find out which one you like is a fun way to spend an afternoon. But if all you need to do is open a DOCX your boss e-mailed you… Less fun.
This was a distro famed for being “new user friendly”, remember.
“I need an office suite… but which one? And a music player… but which one? And a document scanner… but which one? Oh, why doesn’t this file open when I click on it… What app do I need for that?!”
Canonical for their part say these changes will, amongst other aims, “reduc[e] the time it takes for users to go from installation to productivity”. I’d argue the old ISO achieves that much better than the new one does.
Not least because it lets you work offline.
“Internet is Everywhere”
“I never use LibreOffice, Thunderbird, Rhythmbox, or Shotwell so they shouldn’t be included” is a common refrain among existing users. And it’s true: a lot of us use web-mail, use Google Docs etc, stream music, and share photos direct from our phones rather than our desktops.
But crafting a desktop experience that assumes we all do those things — and to a degree, assumes we should be doing those things — overlooks those who don’t want to or can’t.
Cliche reference though it is, there are parts of world where internet is patchy and data is expensive. When those people download Ubuntu 23.04 (or below) they get an OS that can do everything Windows 95 can, and do the majority of it offline.
With Ubuntu 23.10 they don’t.
They get an ISO marginally smaller in size (which is faster to download) but the OS itself is less useful. To make it useful they need to …download more stuff, which requires more internet (and some Snaps aren’t exactly modest in size) which is… a drawback.
And then there are those who use Ubuntu as a “live OS” booted from a USB to rescue data from a broken laptop, fix a broken install, or work on a temporary machine. They now need to ensure they have internet access so they can download and install the tools they need to achieve their aims.
Rather than being a ‘more thoughtful default install’, I’m wondering if it’s actually more thoughtless. Prior, users could trust Ubuntu to give them good enough defaults. It did the hard work of finding the “good” software for them. Now they’re on their own.
Free Software is Important
I also have an existential anxiety linked somewhat to all of this.
If leading distros no longer feel obliged to put free software options front-and-centre will new users ever hear, learn, or use them? Won’t they just flock to familiar brand names, or only discover Linux-supported software that’s backed by large marketing budgets (and no-doubt dubious EULAs)?
Privacy-respecting, functional (if not always flashy), and offline-capable alternatives to cloud-based, proprietary, and vendor lock-in tools feel like more important includes today than they ever before
Not just for those who don’t have 24/7 web access; not just for those who use older machines that can’t run (increasingly) bloated web-based tools well; not just for those wanting to escape to onslaught of online trackers, ads, AI, and manipulative “suggested content”…
I concede that “most of us use web-based services anyway so shipping legacy apps is pointless” is a compelling argument, and it’s made stronger still by “those who want those kind of desktop apps can install them if they want”.
But Ubuntu has, until now, always given us an
Ubuntu Already Has a Minimal Install, Btw
Finally, I feel a slimmed-down Ubuntu, contrary to the spin, gives us all less choice, not more.
After all, if you don’t want reams of pre-installed software on Ubuntu you (in 23.04 and below) have a choice not to: you tick the ‘minimal install’ option during installation and away it all goes. For tho really picky about preinstalled packages there are net-install images.
Making “minimal” the default option provides no choice for those want the comprehensive, feature-complete OS they previously got.
There’s no “full-fat” Ubuntu ISO they can download; there’s no “complete install” check-box in the installer; no “select some software” wizard that runs on first boot. Not even a Clippy-esque companion that pops up to say “it looks like you’re trying to open a DOCX file, install this app”…
If there’s a saving grace in all this is that most Ubuntu users stick to LTS versions. They’re unlikely to download 23.10 so won’t be affected by this “decision”experiment” — but a new LTS is coming next year and, by writing this, I hope, if nothing else, some jagged UX edges can be smoothened out.
Can you tell I’m unconvinced?
There’s elephant sat in the room as you read this.
If you’re “into” Ubuntu (or Linux) enough to read blogs like mine you’re already proficient. To you, a stripped-back, slimmed-down Ubuntu that serves as a vanilla starting point on which to impose your preferences will sound like a totally superb idea.
You know which apps you like, you know how to install them, you know how to add extra repos (Ubuntu’s new app store doesn’t support Flathub where a lot more “choice” exclusively resides), and so on.
But much of Ubuntu’s user base use Ubuntu as it comes. They don’t chase updates. They don’t constantly install new software. They don’t want to have to repeatedly Google “how do i…” every time they need to do something. They want to double-click on a file and have it open.
Without decent defaults, without providing an OOTB experience that’s halfway functional for the majority it’ll be a challenge for Ubuntu to remain the all-round, general purpose, go-to Linux distro recommendation it currently is.
Summary
I agree that Ubuntu’s pre-existing software choices are stale (I’ve bleated on about it for years), and I accept that we live in an era dominated by (largely proprietary, locked-in) web-based services. But I think the compromises that address these issues could be more “thoughtful”.
Sharing my thoughts will no-doubt see me once again labelled as a “hater”, but so be it. I’ve been using Ubuntu for as long as I’ve been doing this blog. My concerns come from a well-intentioned place.
Ubuntu is special, and I want it to remain so.
