[Legion]

It's almost ridiculous how much.

If such a minute change like this generates such a negative reaction from someone, how is that person going to handle real, serious change? Especially when this minute change was such an arbitrary thing to begin with.

Change is good. Temporary uncomfort is good. Adaptability is a trait to nurture, not protect yourself from.

[sqrt17]

If change were always a good thing, and temporary uncomfort good - do you mind if I borrow that office chair of yours and replace it with a different one? If you're still bored, there's this French-layout keyboard I could give you. And - no, don't use it with UK/US layout, that would be boring.

Unwarranted change - one that you push onto others without asking, and without really having a good reason - is usually a bad thing in terms of usability - especially when one of your Linux machines suddenly has the window buttons on one side whereas all the others have them on the other.

If it were a radical improvement in usability, I'd say go for it, but as it is, you're typically at the right side of a window when you don't want to have the mouse cursor inside it (or to be near the scroll bar, because the scroll wheel doesn't work when you're mousing over that flash movie), so you have to go a shorter way if the buttons are on the right.

[EliRivers]

"If change were always a good thing, and temporary uncomfort good - do you mind if I borrow that office chair of yours and replace it with a different one? If you're still bored, there's this French-layout keyboard I could give you. And - no, don't use it with UK/US layout, that would be boring."

These are not good examples. I just use whichever chair is closest to where I want to sit when I want to sit, and I switch between dvorak and qwerty more than once a day without even noticing any more. Likewise, I anticipate, whichever side the close button is on. These are utterly inconsequential changes. I'd be willing to bet that the time I would save each day by having the close button more often nearer to where the mouse pointer is when I need to close a window is swallowed up in a single digressive conversation lasting less than a few minutes.

[Legion]

Your keyboard example is poor. The point is to not be so ridiculously oversensitive to change as to freak out over very minor ones. Your example is on a whole other order of magnitude of chaos, and as such is not a valid comparison.

[andrewvc]

Change is good. Temporary uncomfort is good.

This isn't like moving to a new city to broaden your horizons. I didn't find changing the side the buttons were on expanded my consciousness and brought about a refreshing personal transformation.

No, the button change simply annoyed me because it was pointless, and ruined years of muscle memory (till I turned it off). Change for the sake of change can be good in some areas of life, but for the simple day to day stuff, if it isn't broken, don't fix it unless you're actually making it better.

Has anyone actually found the new buttons better? The closest I've heard anyone say is, "eh, I got used to em pretty quick". I'd hardly call that a ringing endorsement.

I found them actively bad, as they're right on top of all your menus, which could lead to mistaken menu clicks and vice versa.

[Legion]

>> "This isn't like moving to a new city to broaden your horizons. I didn't find changing the side the buttons were on expanded my consciousness and brought about a refreshing personal transformation."

Not everything is a revelation, or a revolution. Small details matter. Hence the fact that we're even talking about this one.

>. "but for the simple day to day stuff, if it isn't broken, don't fix it unless you're actually making it better."

I would argue that it is better. Now everything is grouped together on the left. Since we're speaking to each other in English, I can say that "we" read from left to right.

Left makes sense. The buttons are positioned the same location from the top-left of the screen whether I'm on my 1024x600 netbook or my 1920x1200 laptop. They're no longer at the farthest possible point away from where my eyes typically linger.

You can say that's a small thing, you can say it doesn't matter to you. But to simply say it's "change for the sake of change" is to woefully undersell the idea of good design. (Of course, in this case, it's mostly aping the design established by Apple, but better to perpetuate good designs than bad ones)

[Rust]

FWIW, I actually do find the buttons to be better positioned now. Ubuntu's default layout puts the power, email, date/time and network tray icons in the top-right corner of the screen, within a quarter-inch a maximized window's control buttons. I am constantly clicking the wrong button when I'm in a hurry, sometimes closing a window (requiring me to answer a dialog box before I can work in that window again) or minimizing it when I'm just trying to set my IM status, and sometimes opening the calendar when I want to close a window. Top-left is better for me since the worst I can accidentally do there is open the Applications menu for a second, and it disappears when you click outside it, unlike the calendar.

[waterlesscloud]

Pointless change for the sake of change is what causes me to react negatively.

[Legion]

Except it was neither pointless nor simply for the sake of change.

[wvenable]

Really? I don't understand the point except perhaps that Ubuntu now wants to look more like Mac OS X than Windows.