Ubuntu drops Unity and moves back to GNOME

[MintyO]

More reactions from the community: https://www.change.org/p/canonical-ltd- ... nome-shell

I don't know what it signals exactly or what the impact is (probably nothing). Just thought I'd post for anyone interested.

[xenopeek]

It doesn't signal anything except some KDE users apparently not being content with Kubuntu, KDE Neon, Linux Mint KDE or any of the other Ubuntu based distros using KDE. Or thinking KDE should have been chosen because it can be made to look and behave much like Unity with some work and compromise (it looks clunky). But so what that KDE can be made to look and behave like Unity? So can MATE with Mutiny. So can Gnome Shell (see Zorin OS for example). And likely other desktop environments with a little work and some tweaks.

I'd say these KDE users have lost perspective. If Canonical wanted to continue with Unity they would. Convergence and phone is dead so to Canonical Unity is dead. People that want to continue with Unity have the Yunit fork and likely soon an Ubuntu Yunit distro. The fact that other desktop environments can be made to look like Unity doesn't play into Canonical's decision on the way forward.

Other arguments I read were about Unity8 would be Qt based and so KDE should be chosen because it also is Qt based. Again, convergence and phone are dead so this isn't relevant. Qt was chosen because it has excellent support on phone hardware. As Canonical is dropping phone as a target, the prime reason to go with Qt is gone as well. Besides that, Unity8 wasn't going to use KDE applications—they were writing applications in QML and QtQuick for Unity8. Not using applications using the KDE libraries but pure Qt.

[Lysander666]

More reactions from the community: https://www.change.org/p/canonical-ltd- ... nome-shell

I don't know what it signals exactly or what the impact is (probably nothing). Just thought I'd post for anyone interested.

Oh, I do love a good internet petition. If only these petition starters would get it into their heads that success has nothing to do with how many signatures they accrue, but if the person the petition is directed at cares little enough about their vision to be swayed by outsiders. If they are focused in their goal, even a million signatures will make no difference. Still it's nice to think they can.

[KBD47]

More reactions from the community: https://www.change.org/p/canonical-ltd- ... nome-shell

I don't know what it signals exactly or what the impact is (probably nothing). Just thought I'd post for anyone interested.

I would say yes--go with KDE. KDE should get more love from the Linux community. But not because it can be made to look like Unity. KDE is an awesome desktop in its own right and full featured. It doesn't need any tweaks. I recently installed KDE Debian Stretch and out of the box it was ready to go, doesn't need to be made usable like Gnome Shell. Debian defaults to Gnome DE as does Fedora. Only Suse defaults to KDE. Would love to have seen Ubuntu choose KUbuntu as its default DE. KDE solves all the reasons/problems for them having left Gnome to begin with. But the decision has already been made.

[Condorman]

My personal feeling on all of this is that it is fantastic news. I say that but I'm extremely sad that this didn't play out for Canonical however. There wasn't much wrong with Unity imho and it was a nice modern desktop (though it was a bit too fussy for my tastes), and I'm even more sad that the phone/tablet stuff didn't happen. Nobody wanted them to fail. I never read that anywhere. However, when you look around and a company like Microsoft is in the same boat, well nvm eh?

But Canonical going back to GNOME is great for a number of reasons imo. Firstly, the desktop edition hadn't seen any real upgrade for about what, 4 years? It's been in maintenance mode since around 2013/14. During this time, all the other desktops have improved considerably, and even smaller communities like Cinnamon have added considerably to the landscape. GNOME 3 has certainly improved massively too, and the audience has caught up with it as well. You still get some die-hards ranting that this or that desktop sucks. They're wrong.

But most importantly it seems to me that all those distros using Ubuntu as a base can breathe a little easier, because technologies that Canonical were pursuing would have meant radical change for them that now is less likely, and less likely to cause fragmentation. How could Mint have continued if Mir had been implemented when the rest of the landscape is using Wayland? Surely it would have been impossible. They would have had to seek a different base. I think many people (though not necessarily folks here) may underestimate the displacement of the Linux landscape if Ubuntu were to cordon off its area in this way. Moving back to GNOME will allow them to focus and trim and get fit.

But mostly, the GNOME 3/Shell desktop is fantastic and it should be their main DE. My feeling is they should never have moved away from it in the first place. I know the "but it sucks" crew will be along shortly, but that's OK. They turn up everywhere and just won't let it go.

[Lucap]

Why Gnome is Pronounced Guh-Nome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biEbStkdn4k

Well i was pronouncing it wrong.........

[killer de bug]

My personal feeling on all of this is that it is fantastic news. I say that but I'm extremely sad that this didn't play out for Canonical however.

I think it's just the life of a piece of software. Gnome Shell and Unity were not that far. They had some nice features and with time, the differences between the two of them decreased. That's convergence. Today, Canonical realizes that it is easier to use Gnome 3 with small addons than to maintain Unity. They may even push some code in Gnome Shell in the future.

Just the normal life of software.

[mike acker]

Canonical starts IPO path

excerpt

At OpenStack Summit, Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth revealed in an interview that the recent changes in the Linux and cloud power were to ready Canonical for an IPO.

...

These moves were all being made to start Canonical on its road to an IPO. Canonical has been doing well. As Silber said recently, " Ubuntu has industry adoption that is both broad and deep. Companies such as Walmart, Netflix, and eBay build their infrastructure on Ubuntu. Telcos such as Deutsche Telekom, AT&T, and NTT build their next-generation telecom capabilities on Ubuntu."

Translated, "Canonical to become a commercial interest"

[Pjotr]

Canonical starts IPO path

excerpt

At OpenStack Summit, Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth revealed in an interview that the recent changes in the Linux and cloud power were to ready Canonical for an IPO.

...

These moves were all being made to start Canonical on its road to an IPO. Canonical has been doing well. As Silber said recently, " Ubuntu has industry adoption that is both broad and deep. Companies such as Walmart, Netflix, and eBay build their infrastructure on Ubuntu. Telcos such as Deutsche Telekom, AT&T, and NTT build their next-generation telecom capabilities on Ubuntu."

Translated, "Canonical to become a commercial interest"

Good for the continuity.

[KBD47]

"commercial interest" was the overall message over the several announcements lately it seemed to me. I mean we knew Ubuntu wanted to make money, and they have a right to do that. But Ubuntu never seemed laser focused on becoming a commercial interest until now.
This is why my focus has been on Debian since these announcements started trickling out. I trust Debian more as a community driven distro.
Regarding Ubuntu I'm not convinced as those commercial interests become ever more important that the things I love about Linux when it comes to Ubuntu will thrive.
Mint & Debian all the way.

[xenopeek]

OMG! Ubuntu! have some information about Ubuntu 17.10 development with Gnome Shell and future plans for 18.04: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/ubun ... s-answered

[sammiev]

OMG! Ubuntu! have some information about Ubuntu 17.10 development with Gnome Shell and future plans for 18.04: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/ubun ... s-answered

Thanks.

[Lucap]

The Ubuntu Desktop Team Wants YOUR Feedback

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/ubun ... urvey-1710

The results of this survey will help inform and shape the Ubuntu desktop team’s approach to GNOME in Ubuntu 17.10.

To go with what xenopeek » posted........

[thom_A]

The Ubuntu Desktop Team Wants YOUR Feedback

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/ubun ... urvey-1710

The results of this survey will help inform and shape the Ubuntu desktop team’s approach to GNOME in Ubuntu 17.10.

You don't need a survey if your objective is premised on the desire to make the majority of users happy. If not, and continue to insist you have to be different as in "my way or the I way is the best way," then it's a fruitless effort.

I think the objective should be to make it extremely customizable. Meaning, the capability to make it look like any desktop environment any user prefers. Many users want the taskbar and panel on the bottom and left side of the screen, as one example. Why deny them that? Doesn't make any sense. Then he/she ends up switching to another distro just because of that one shortcoming alone. That's why to me the modern way of dealing with desktop UI if you are a designer is to make it moldable and flexible. It's disappointing when the context menu is lacking whenever I click the right mouse button, as another example.

I see that their idea of streamlining a desktop is to make it barren and deserted as if most monitors have the size of a 7" tablet. Man, give me 10 ways to minimize a window and I'm all for it, via RMB, all four corners of the window, via shortcut, icon, you name it. If you have a large monitor, your cursor can't be flying around in long distances just to reach the same spot everytime. If you have been a power user of any serious app, you will want to access a single command or tool in many different ways. These designers probably haven't been in that situation.

[xenopeek]

I think the objective should be to make it extremely customizable. Meaning, the capability to make it look like any desktop environment any user prefers. Many users want the taskbar and panel on the bottom and left side of the screen, as one example. Why deny them that?

Gnome Shell's screen layout is customizable through extensions. There are hundreds of extensions. Gnome Shell's screen layout can be made to look like Windows (with either icons only taskbar or icons with labels taskbar), like MATE (the default MATE look, with a panel at the top and bottom), like Unity and like macOS to name just a few. Zorin OS (a commercial distro) stands out with their appearance manager to let you pick such screen layouts and it will load the needed extensions:

It's disappointing when the context menu is lacking whenever I click the right mouse button, as another example.

I don't quite follow unless you mean the default Gnome Shell panel that doesn't differentiate between mouse buttons (clicking left or right does the same thing on the panel). I think it is well designed because I don't see a need for a context menu there.

I see that their idea of streamlining a desktop is to make it barren and deserted as if most monitors have the size of a 7" tablet. Man, give me 10 ways to minimize a window and I'm all for it, via RMB, all four corners of the window, via shortcut, icon, you name it.

So you're saying you'd prefer to use KDE? Just like with anything else in life, some people like this and other people like that. Preferring the one or the other doesn't invalidate either.

If you have a large monitor, your cursor can't be flying around in long distances just to reach the same spot everytime. If you have been a power user of any serious app, you will want to access a single command or tool in many different ways. These designers probably haven't been in that situation.

Gnome Shell has useful keyboard shortcuts to quickly open what you need. I'm not sure clicking around counts as power use Gnome Shell has a good overview of its keyboard shortcuts and most of the standard Gnome applications by now also have their own keyboard shortcuts overview (accessed from the application menu). I think it currently has the best keyboard accessibility of any desktop environment. But again, preferring to use the mouse or preferring to use the keyboard are both good.

[thom_A]

So you're saying you'd prefer to use KDE? Just like with anything else in life, some people like this and other people like that. Preferring the one or the other doesn't invalidate either.

No point in saying what I prefer. The emphasis was on customizability, which lets you set up the desktop you prefer. You set up yours, I set up mine. I don't care what you prefer, nor do I expect you to care what I prefer. There's no such thing as one size fits all. Some people love certain dishes, some don't. It's a very basic thing. Obviously, the solution would be to make all options available for everybody. It's not rocket science. You want a barren desert of a UI, then turn every item you dislike off. Designers relying too much on extensions made by third parties is not ideal either.

[xenopeek]

You want a barren desert of a UI, then turn every item you dislike off.

Your opinion of Gnome Shell is noted. You want a desktop environment with (built in) endless configuration options so it can be made to fit everybody. I'd call that a programming language But I don't agree with the "one size must fit all" argument for software (or for anything else for that matter; I mean you're basically saying to do away with all car brands and just have one car model with a 1500 page options list so it can be made to look like all the car models we had before...). Why must there be only one choice? Why can't there be multiple choices and people can take the one that fits their needs best? I don't believe for a second the average user wants to spend more time configuring their system than at most changing their wallpaper. People have stuff to do just want to use their programs. Enthusiasts like us spending time on forums are the ones to have an interest in spending time to configure our system. For the average user I think it's more like "I like the look of <insert Linux Mint edition> so let me install it; now let me just set this picture of my kids and pets as wallpaper."

[thom_A]

So we agree after all. I don't know what you're arguing about.

Me said: "There's no such thing as one size fits all."

You said: "But I don't agree with the "one size must fit all" argument for software (or for anything else for that matter;"

[xenopeek]

Yet you say a desktop environment should fit all through customizability. That's meeting your needs as somebody that prefers customizability. It's certainly not meeting my needs as somebody that just wants to pick a desktop environment that works for me and prefers to not have to configure too much about it. Making one desktop environment fit all needs through customizability will by definition not fit all needs

[MintyO]

.... Making one desktop environment fit all needs through customizability will by definition not fit all needs

RDE (Russel's DE).