This is true so long as you don't count the latest version of Ubuntu. Unity is a train wreck because it makes the same set of false assumptions that Win 8 makes in terms there being one interface that will work for tablets, phones and PCs.

A year ago I would have agreed that Ubuntu was poised to take up the slack that a lackluster Windows 8 launch would create. Now they just come off as another vendor trying to copy the success of the iPad. As a person who used Ubuntu as his primary desktop for development, I've had to move to another distro (Lubuntu) because Unity/Gnome 3 actively enrages me. I'm not saying that to be dramatic, either. Every time I've tried to use that thing I feel like I have to wash it off my hands. I realize that this might not be as big of a deal to a completely new computer user, but how many of those are really left?

As an aside (and I don't mean this to start a flamewar) Gimp is not a suitable replacement for Photoshop. Gimp has all the same functions as photoshop (and some more, in fact) but that user interface is so bad that it's not really a viable replacement. Sure, there are plenty of people who disagree with me, but I think you'll find most of them are engineers and not people who work with images for a living.

If you don't believe me, look at what happens when Adobe itself makes the slightest change to any of its products. Its user base is immediately infuriated and threatens to revolt.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

As a ~long time Linux user (2004), I love Unity. Gnome 2 was horrid as a default. On a fresh install, the first thing I had to do was to change their ridiculous taskbar settings to condense it down to one. Then I had to spend an hour changing settings to keep it from wasting taskbar space. Icons for programs makes sense, searching for apps makes sense. The only thing I'm not terribly keen on is the behavior of the global menu bar, but it does make sense in a way.

I've never seen the point in making things overly complicated. Changing things from release to release is complicated, but it's better than sticking with tired metaphors that made sense in 1995 but not today. Might I suggest this rage Unity/Gnome3 makes you feel might be because it's radically different, rather than because it's radically worse?

When I first read that you were a "long time linux user" that started with it in 2004, I chuckled, then I realized that 2004 was actually six years ago (a totally legit "long time") and that I am really old. :)

I'll give you that the way Gnome 2 was set up by default in Ubuntu was pretty annoying. I also spent some time "moving in" after a fresh install. I did, however, find that I could get it just the way I wanted it before too long, something I've been unable to do with Unity.

Here's the thing: Ubuntu's primary user base (to this point) is PC users. I'm all for a bright future where Ubuntu runs on phones and tablets and toasters, but seriously, where are they? What problem does Unity solve for PC users that a more "traditional" desktop metaphor doesn't? I can't get past the fact that it's obtuse and annoying solely for the sake of novelty.

To each their own, though. The magic of Linux is that there are plenty of options. Windows users, sadly, don't have that luxury, which is what the original article was pointing out.

Yeah, 2004 was still kind of the "dark ages" of Linux: where the other OSes had moved on but Linux was still mainly sticking with the text-based install and "network drivers need to be downloaded" phase (in my experience).

I will give you that Unity suffers from a lack of customization (I'm willing to give Canonical the benefit of the doubt that it's still a WIP). Unity/Gnome3 is exactly what I've been trying to customize Gnome2 to be like for the past 6 years.

Oh, dear $DEITY, I remember that. Getting the wireless to work meant spending the whole weekend recompiling the kernel and crossing your fingers.