back to article Fancy a remix? Ubuntu Unity and Ubuntu Cinnamon have also hit 22.04

Two unofficial Ubuntu remixes came out on the same day as the official flavors: Ubuntu Unity, a 12-year-old wunderkind's revival of what used to be the official Ubuntu desktop, and Ubuntu Cinnamon, which is Linux Mint's flagship desktop environment. Ubuntu Cinnamon is the older of the two and first appeared in 2019, while …

  1. VoiceOfTruth

    Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

    YALD is my nomenclature for this: Yet Another Linux Distribution. But for two whole new distros in one day I don't know what to do. I could fork YALD to Y∞LD.

    Ubuntu Cinnamon is the Pick n Mix of Linux distros. A bit of this, a bit of that, a bit of something else, and a bit of something something else. Ubuntu Unity is another Pick and Mix of Linux distros.

    It's the same old story over and over. Some things are integrated, some things are not. As Toby Esterhaus asked of George Smiley: "So what's new, George?"

    -> sometimes, when you search for a package, you might get multiple results: one for the OS-native DEB package, possibly one for a Flatpak, and maybe a Snap version too.

    Yeah. That's just what the world wants. Three versions of exactly the same software wrapped up in different wrapping paper.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

      It's when I read paragraphs like...

      There are dozens of Ubuntu remixes and flavors out there. The official Ubuntu Derivatives page links to 30, and DistroWatch has more than five times as many, including many which are no longer maintained. Most offer variants of the same desktops that Ubuntu itself offers, although a few do their own things.

      ...that it seems glaringly obvious why Linux adoption is so low amongst non-geek users.

      I want to move away from Windows and start using Linux

      OK, which one?

      Errr...a mainstream one I can put on my desktop PC...

      OK, which one?

      Errr...Ubuntu I guess...

      OK, which one?

      etc.

      1. VoiceOfTruth

        Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

        -> The official Ubuntu Derivatives page links to 30, and DistroWatch has more than five times as many, including many which are no longer maintained.

        This is exactly my frickin' point. It is wasted effort which withers on the vine.

        I am in favour of Linux and open source. But I have seen it over and over and over, this wasted effort. I can see the point in some derivatives. If you wanted to make the very best Arabic version of desktop Linux, with correct handling of right to left text throughout every aspect of the OS, for example, that's not a bad idea. It would have a well-defined purpose, with a large potential community. But yet another Ubuntu derivative with different bells and whistles and stuff end up as "The result is a bit of a mismatch."

        Packaging up exactly the same software in three different ways (and probably more), what is the point? The so-called Linux community should make one good packaging system and use it. Before anyone curmudgeonly says "Wurrrrl that's the nature of open source" while supping their ale, at least admit it is a waste of time.

        1. nematoad Silver badge

          Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

          ...at least admit it is a waste of time."

          Is it your time they are wasting?

          No? Then what difference does it make?

          You keep going on about the waste of time, waste of resources and pleas for a unified approach as that would be more efficient. Why?

          Are the activities of other people doing what they want affecting you in any way? Are these selfish people depriving you of something?

          Probably not, so why all this irritation, anger and hammering of the keyboard?

          In the FOSS world people can please themselves. Spend time developing things and mixing and matching as it suits them.

          The F in FOSS does not only stand for free as in free beer. It also stands for the freedom to let people please themselves and do what they want in that world.

          1. VoiceOfTruth

            Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

            And they waited for eons for the Year of The Linux Desktop. And it did not come cos they were too busy making another package manager.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @VoiceOfTruth - Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              Who's they ? Looking at the diversity of Linux ecosystem and the multitude of distributions it seems to me that nobody in the Linux community is waiting for the YOTLD. Linux is on my desktops where and when I need/want it so, prey tell, why should I wait for the year of Linux on the desktop ? What would it bring me that I don't have by now ?

        2. druck Silver badge

          Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

          @VoiceOfTruth "I am in favour of Linux and open source."

          Any yet you post the same nonsense criticism in every single post about Linux.

          No less than 15 times here https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/04/25/debian_firmware_debate/

          1. VoiceOfTruth

            Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

            Can you explain the value of having exactly the same software wrapped up in three different ways? I would really like to know. Well not really, but I would like to see you tie yourself up in knots and jumping through hoops to try and pretend it makes any sense at all.

            1. Adair Silver badge

              Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              It's this thing called 'freedom'.

              They are free to do what ever they are interested in doing with the OS.

              You are free to ignore them and get on with what interests you. Or not.

            2. dajames Silver badge

              Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              Can you explain the value of having exactly the same software wrapped up in three different ways?

              While I don't see any advantage in having three different packagings of the same software per se, if there's only going to be one I don't want it to be Snap or Flatpack, I want a normal .deb package (since we're talking Ubuntu here).

              So if things like Snap and Flatpack are going to exist (and there are good reasons for them to) then they'd better be in addition to .deb and not instead.

              That's why there are three ...

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @VoiceOfTruth - Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              We, the Linux users are perfectly fine with that. To us, coming up with the fourth packaging system is an intellectual exercise worth pursuing, something we don't get with Windows.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

            Yet Another Linux Diatribe?

            [I'll get my coat]

      2. captain veg Silver badge

        Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

        > I want to move away from Windows and start using Linux

        > OK, which one?

        Mint, obviously. Next?

        -A.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Anonymous Coward - Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

        Why exactly are you trying to move away from Windows ? And why moving to Linux ?

      4. badflorist

        Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

        "OK, which one?"

        Sick with Windows since you don't make choices.

    2. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

      > Ubuntu Cinnamon is the Pick n Mix of Linux distros.

      That one is fairly redundant indeed. If you want to use Ubuntu with Cinnamon, your obvious choice would be Linux Mint, isn't it?

      1. Solviva

        Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

        Well not quite redundant, with Mint Cinnamon you won't get the 'lazy/inefficient' containerised apps (at least by default), contrasted with Ubuntu Cinnamon where you'll be offered plenty of apps each shipping with their own sets of libraries, aka SNAP/Flatpack.

        But otherwise yes if you want Cinnamon then Mint would be your first and obvious choice.

        1. matjaggard

          Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

          @Voiceoftruth I don't understand why so many down-votes and it makes perfect sense to be frustrated with this even if you're not the one wasting time on YALD. I'm also annoyed because I'd love to use Linux for everything - I did for about 2 years and instead of spending my time waiting for filesystem operations to complete (which I did on Windows) I spent it fiddling with stuff which basically worked but just not quite smoothly enough to get out of my way.

          Thankfully I'm not a designer type at all so the 3 or 4 different look and feels for different windows didn't bother me at all but for some it would grate.

          The frustration comes from so much potential and yet so far away from a system that anyone could use.

          1. Esme

            Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

            I use Mint for everything.

            I am not an IT boffin like many (most?) of the folk here. Granted, I have programmed in early forms of BASIC, and learnt a it of machine code (which I now cannot recall) back when the 6502 was the greatest thing since the invention of the transistor, but I was a dabbler who rapidly got out of dabbling with sftware as things stared getting waaaay more complicated than I could cope with. SInce then, I've been a mere user.

            So, since before the A500 Amiga was around, I have been just a user. I want stuff to just work, damnit! I was prepared to put up with a bit of a learning curve getting started with Linux, because Windows was so awful compared to using Workbench on the Amiga. And I ganed the impression that Linux might be more Amiga-like.

            Whilst I did have some difficulties early on, they weren't as bad as the ones I'd been having with Windows, so I persisted. At some point (around the initial release of Ubuntu? No sure) I found that Liunx Just Worked (TM) aside from the sound occasionaly failing for reasons I didnt understand or care about, and a quick reboot solved the probem (for me) anyway.

            These days, Linux works with no issues whatsoever, so far as I'm concrned, and has done for a umber of years. In that tie, I've helped quite a few folk fed up with Windows swap over to Linus, and they also have had an unproblematic experience. About all I had to do i most cases was be present as they did the Linux installation, to ease their anxiety about something computery that was new to them!

            So sweeping statements like "so far away from a system that anyone could use" doesn't fly with me. If you're an average user, Mint or Ubuntu work fine. If you're very IT savvy like most of the fol here and you're having problems with it, then you're likely doing something with it that most folk wouldn't., or on bleeding edge hardware that most folk do not have.Or you could be phenomenally unlucky in some way, of course, in which case, comisserations. Even gaming on Linx is retty pain-free these days, using Steam - sure not all games designed for Windows will run on it, but then again, I don't recall people complaining that one console can' run software written for a different console either. And that is what a computer is to most folk - a magic box that runs the stuff it runs, just as with consoles. If they want/need to run Windows stuff, they're likely to just stick with Windows. Or have two PC's one with Linux one with Windows. No dual-boots or VM's for them!

            As for the "why have more than one package manager?" question that someone raised earlier in this thread, my reply is why not? If you're less IT literate than I am, you'll likely go with the system default. But if for some reasn you don't like that, there are other options available. Personally, I tend to use Synaptic, but occasionally use the default software manager. ANd I always install Xfce because it's a nice simple ligtweight desktop (although I could happily throttle the nit that thought that enforcing extremely thin scrolbars was a good idea. Some of us have failing eyesight and our fine motor control isnt so good these days as well!)!)

            Beyond the initial "which Linux is best for a noob like me?" question, I've not once heard a newbie complain about the lack of options Linux gives them - if anything, it's a welcome revelation to them!

            So find it very peculiar indeed that people working in IT for their jobs seem to have more problems with Linux than yer average user does!

            1. ICL1900-G3 Bronze badge

              Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              Amen. That is all.

          2. VoiceOfTruth

            Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

            I expect downvotes from people who have blinkers on. There is indeed a lot of potential for Linux on the desktop, but it has remained as 'potential' for about 20 years now.

            Thank you for your comment.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @VoiceOfTruth - Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

              That's very kind of you to insult all those who do not adopt your truth.

        2. ThatOne Silver badge

          Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

          > with Mint Cinnamon you won't get the 'lazy/inefficient' containerised apps (at least by default)

          As you said, it's just "not by default", if you want/need them you can get them all the same. Sorry, this isn't really a selling point.

    3. frankyunderwood123

      Re: Just what the world needed - two more Linux distros

      And exactly how is this impacting you? - does it ruin your day?

      Pick a distro, roll with it - or don't - entirely up to you, your free choice. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

      Nobody is going to hold your hand, either dive in or, to be honest, STFU.

      If you were being _forced_ into using Linux, you may have a valid point, but you aren't.

      A great deal of this work is FOSS - done for the love of it, not the profit.

      It's free. Totally free.

      There's no big tech company calling the shots here, bloating your computer with junk you don't want, filling it with spyware that by default, reports "back home", deciding which software it only wants you to use.

      It is entirely up to the end user - if you want an OS that you actually control and effectively own, the only thing you need to do, is to actually put the effort in to learn it.

      Once you get over your little rant about "too much choice", you'll find there really is only a few "flavours" built on top of the same damn kernel, with the same damn GNU utilities - it's Linux under the hood.

      Those flavours are generally the core "parent" distro's from which many variants flow.

      E.g. Debian, CentOs, Slackware, SuSe

      The main difference between these core distro's, is package management, folder structure and what they ship with in terms of software.

      Personally, I find this choice liberating - I'm currently running the absurdly named Pop!_OS as my Linux based gaming rig - it's fantastic. And yep, it's based on Ubuntu, which itself is based on what can be considered the parent OS, Debian.

      1. juice Silver badge

        Might be worth moving with the times...

        > Nobody is going to hold your hand, either dive in or, to be honest, STFU.

        I've been tinkering with Linux ever since I downloaded Slackware onto a stack of floppies back in 1997 and tried to get it up and running on a 486 with 8mb of ram. And my working life is spent sitting in front of a laptop running Ubuntu.

        But in general, I am more in agreement with VoiceOfTruth's position.

        And this kind of "It's free, so STFU" comment has two fundamental issues with it.

        The first is that Open Source stuff - especially Linux - is no longer just a playground for hobbyists. It's being used as both the back and front end of stuff which is being used by non-technical people. And not only do non-technical people vastly outnumber technical people, but they generally just want something which Just Works.

        The idea that (to take an arbitrary example) my great aunt is going to dive into the documentation and source code to try and figure out why DHCP isn't working on her linux router is frankly farcial.

        And that also leads into the second point.

        Because the key thing about Open Source is not that it's free (as in beer). It's arguably not even that it's free (as in speech)[*].

        Instead, it's that Open Source defines and implements a standardised set of tools and processes which anyone can use. Thereby reducing both waste and cost, since there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

        It just so happens that sort of standardisation works best when it's given away for free. But at the same time: it only works if there is a single standard - or at least, a single standard with multiple implementations.

        However, when it comes to things like Linux package-managers and GUIs, that's not what we have. They all look slightly differently, all work slightly differently and are generally poorly documented; fixing issues can be a nightmare unless you have the knack of hunting through Stack Overflow for nuggets of information.

        This isn't to say that Linux should freeze and stagnate. Because that's the other nice thing about Open Source; people are free to take it, change it and improve it. Evolution in action, baby.

        But again, my great-aunt doesn't care about any of that. She wants something which Just Works. And as long as we're in a situation where there's lots of different (and mostly compatible) solutions for the same problem, we're going to get people throwing their hands up and walking away, especially if they're non-technical.

        So for me, snarking about how users should just STFU is frankly both elitist and counter productive when it comes to promoting and improving OSS.

        [*] There's also the point that while open-source is generally free at the point of use, a lot of mainstream stuff is commercially funded, whether that's through donations, advertising, charging for training/support, etc. But that's a wider discussion...

        1. Adair Silver badge

          Re: Might be worth moving with the times...

          Interesting opinion, but in my opinion it basically misses the point.

          The point being that FLOSS offers the user a toolbox and a foundation, after that it's up to the distro builders, app developers, and users (of varying levels of competence and interest) as to what they do with it all.

          Whining on about how it isn't 'easy' or consistent all the way down and across the stack is to fundamentally misunderstand what 'the stack' is all about.

          In the end FLOSS isn't for everyone - the walled gardens and black boxes have their place, and if that's really what you need/want then use them, and accept the price to be paid

          Likewise, if what you need is something that is genuinely 'open' then use that, and accept the costs inherent in that.

          But, whichever, for heavens sake, don't whine about your choice, and the fact that it isn't perfect according to your requirements.

          1. juice Silver badge

            Re: Might be worth moving with the times...

            > Interesting opinion, but in my opinion it basically misses the point.

            The nice thing about opinions is that we all have one...

            And in my opinion, you're perhaps missing the point as well. Or at least: we're perhaps talking from two different perspectives.

            > Likewise, if what you need is something that is genuinely 'open' then use that, and accept the costs inherent in that.

            And this is where I think our perspectives are differing. The above line suggests that you're looking at it from the perspective of someone implementing a piece of functionality with OSS. Whereas I'm looking at it from the perspective of the end-users who are then trying to make use of that functionality.

            Because let's face it, my hypothetical great aunt doesn't care if the software on her laptop is "open". She just wants it to work.

            And that brings me back to my pathological obsession with standards. Because the key thing which has driven scientific, logistical and engineering evolution is the introduction of consistent standards. Even where those standards were arguably flawed (e.g. fahrenheit, or PRINCE2), it gives people something they can work against.

            And when all is said and done, Open Source is effectively just a codification of a given process or standard. Whether it's the GNU C compiler, the linux kernel or the BSD network stack: here's a tool to do a set of things in a standardised and agreed way.

            (If you're lucky, there might even be some documentation to go alongside it...)

            Equally, it's one thing for a back-end developer to (say) choose Postgres over MySQL, or even to opt for MariaDB over MySQL. Because that has no impact on the end-user.

            But it's an entirely different thing when it comes to "end-user" OSS implementations. Ubuntu, Mint, Redhat, Debian, etc, etc: they all do nominally the same thing, but with visibily different implementations. And as per this very article, many of them include multiple ways to mostly do the exact same thing.

            Hell, just look at how much of a mess the "internet of things" has become; it's riddled with exploits, incompatibilities, etc. Despite all nominally being built on FLOSS.

            For better or worse, this is arguably fundamental to the very nature of OS: people are free to pick stuff up and tweak/mutate/evolve it to fit their needs.

            But by the same token, it also seriously hinders the wider uptake of OSS, especially when it comes to things like the oft promised "year of Linux on the desktop".

            1. Adair Silver badge

              Re: Might be worth moving with the times...

              'Because let's face it, my hypothetical great aunt doesn't care if the software on her laptop is "open". She just wants it to work.'

              So, why is your great aunt using a FLOSS solution if she 'just wants it to work'?

              Surely she should be using some proprietary black box that does 'just work', but obviously has 'costs' associated with that—maybe costs that are not particularly relevant to her needs, or important to her philosophically.

              Chances are she is using a FLOSS solution because her great nephew/niece has offered to set it up for her, because that solution suits them re maintenance, etc. If she has actively selected that solution for herself she should already know, having done due diligence, what she is letting herself in for and has taken appropriate steps to mitigate the drawbacks, or is sufficiently IT literate not to be bothered by them.

              Having said that, my personal experience of current mainstream Linux desktop solutions is that, once setup, they do pretty much 'just work', often rather more reliably than the proprietary competition, not that the Linux setup is without issues—we're talking general purpose computing here—there are always issues.

        2. frankyunderwood123

          Re: Might be worth moving with the times...

          The point is, who are you really getting mad at here?

          It's fine to recommend Ubuntu to your granny - she doesn't need to know that it's Linux, just that it works.

          And it does work.

          The same computer problems will exist, whether your gran uses windows, macOS or Linux - "setting up networking" - I mean, have you seen the mess that is windows when it _doesn't_ work?

          The wonderful "diagnose connection issues", that almost always does absolutely nothing.

          The ridiculous array of menus to click through.

          Add to that, microsoft, on a frequent basis, over the last decade, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, with a new UI, windows 8 and 11 being a case in point.

          How is a non-technical user going to cope, being shunted from windows 7 to windows 11, in one fell swoop?

          "Where's all my stuff gone?"

          Is _this_ what standardisation brings us? Really? Is that what it looks like?

          Seems like the biggest gripe here, is about package management - thing is, most modern distro's have a software centre these days. Not all of them are ... that good ... but they do work.

          The key challenge, if you are talking about "how do non-technical users cope", is installation.

          Given that the vast majority of computer users buy their computer with the OS already installed, how exactly do they "switch" anyway?

          The reality is, a lot of this is still, unfortunately, too technical for the average user.

          Then again, the average user probably doesn't really care that much - "can I get what I need to do, done?" "Cool, done now, turn off"

          I challenge you to go and ask 10 random strangers, maybe in a supermarket or down the pub:

          "Do you know what Linux is?"

          Most people can't even tell you the version of the windows or mac operating system they are using.

          And don't even try starting a conversation about "Free Open Source Software" and why it matters... ;)

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @juice - Re: Might be worth moving with the times...

          So you want the whole world to standardize and streamline Linux just because your aunt cant be ars... sorry, bothered to read about DHCP ?

          Now seriously, how about giving her a nice Windows 11 machine because, you know Windows is free too and she would be spared of reading any documentation. And while we're still at it, can you please chose that only distribution for us so we can all gather around it and forget about all the others ? Go on, lead us out of this mess!

  2. ThatOne Silver badge
    Flame

    Removed, hidden, simplified

    What's with this fad of dumbing down and removing features all around?

    Have we all gotten so much stupider than 20 years ago that we now need the kids' version of everything? Please, less features, no menus, no customization, no choice, just restrict us to what some harebrained marketing person imagined we might want to do. Computers are not about doing things anymore, but about consuming stuff in the most streamlined way possible.

    1. Solviva

      Re: Removed, hidden, simplified

      It's called "Think Different" AKA this is how we do things, and if you think differently then you're obviously using it wrong.

      I've been a Macbook user since 2012, whilst the hardware is generally good, MacOS has plenty of annoyances that you simply can't fix, and with each new iteration more annoyances arrive. Clearly I'm using it wrong :)

      Just as a latest example, previously you could hold a key down whilst clicking the wifi icon to view details about the network you're connected to & all other visible networks. Now as an improvement, you can only view details about the network you're connected to.

      1. ThatOne Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Removed, hidden, simplified

        "Less is more" is the new design mantra.

        Obviously fueled by accounts' mantra "less is cheaper", but that one is not advertised.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Removed, hidden, simplified

      Does anyone at Ubuntu dogfood their own desktop?

      It's bad enough when I have to use it in a VM to test something for an hour or so, then close the window and thank $DEITY that's over. Imagine if someone was using that as their main OS.

      1. ICL1900-G3 Bronze badge

        Re: Removed, hidden, simplified

        I just hope that you never have any real problems in your life.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Removed, hidden, simplified

          These aren't problems, these are minor embuggerations on which accumulate to make life just that little bit less pleasent than it should be. Desktops which are measurably more difficult to use despite everyone knowing how they should be done two decades ago, smug twats on the Internet, etc...

  3. Philip Storry
    Thumb Up

    I have to agree with the author on Unity being a superb desktop environment, so I will be trying this out very soon.

    I'm currently using Ubuntu MATE, with the Mutiny panel configuration. It's fine, but not as good as actual Unity. In particular I miss the searching...

    I had figured I'd simply move to something else when Unity was left for dead, hence moving to MATE as a least-worst option. But it seems that Unity is forming - or has formed - its own community and momentum, and I'd like to add some more to those user numbers.

    Here's hoping that there's a long future for this particular remix!

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Linux

    Meh!

    Devuan lite

    LightDM

    Rox Filer

    Openbox

    Then just the programs I want on top of that.

    1. GBE

      Meh too!

      Gentoo

      openbox

      urxvt, bash, emacs.

      no filer

      no DM

      no systemd

      no "desktop environment"

      My main concession to the "modern world" is Chrome/Chromium

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    KDE starting to lose it's way?

    Jumped from KDE on Ubuntu 16.04 to KDE on Debian Bullseye, and it feels like they are starting to make poor decisions. Apps that worked fine on 16.04 are now harder/fiddlier to use. It feels a bit like "corporate said so", but manifesting in a FOSS organisation.

  6. Avatar of They
    Unhappy

    I disagree with the Author

    A lot.

    Unity was the worst desktop. Ever. 16 GB of RAM did nothing to help it along at any pace on a 4k touchscreen capable Dell laptop that had Linux as native (so you can't blame drivers).

    I think it boiled down to the fact that it was designed by someone that assumed you were not using a track pad and had 3 buttons on a mouse.

    Lag, lots of lag in scrolling up and down and general movement of windows around as you try and do something.

    Missing scroll bars,

    Touchscreen was not supported.

    The tiniest icons to tell you how many windows you had open (I think they were little white triangles),

    More lag.

    And it was buggy, I remember things crashing and stopping because the desktop had to catch up.

    I tried it on a desktop as well and that was marginally better as I had a mouse so scrolling in the file explorer became possible. (But still the bugs and the laaaaaaaaaaggggggggggg)

    So I moved to Mint. I did have a happy grin when Unity was dropped. And its rebirth brings me no joy.

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: I disagree with the Author

      Same here - Unity was one of the worst UIs crapped out for a while. At least until Windows 8 was inflicted on people anyway.

      I'm all for choice and variety and trying things, but Unity was so useless by way of usability that it could only really appeal to users with zero attention span. That way they could forget how unusable it was in between having to use it and just think "shiny" instead. Any attempts at serious use of Unity quickly revealed it to be utterly unusable - for example trying to have more than a couple of applications running and switching between them.

      I ditched the distro and didn't return.

    2. patashnik

      Re: I disagree with the Author

      I was very quickly put off by Unity myself with it being unreasonably resource hungry, clunky and sorely lacking much in the way of configurability (or am I thinking of GNOME 3? These 'modern' DEs feel the same that way...)

      Very much a case of WYSIWYG in the sense that it was as impractical as it looked. When OSS projects chase the Fruit Company's design 'innovations' (which in itself is inadvisable given the evident goal to deemphasise the desktop and traditional desktop metaphor) they seemingly tend to fall on one extreme or the other in terms of value added.

      Thus, we typically get either minor but legitimate improvements to the UX or needless form-over-function changes without clear purpose beyond keeping UX designers (groan) busy between projects of any significance. It's not unlike legal teams kept on retainer, affirming company rights to its trademarks via court action, the difference being that lawyers have a valuable role in corporate structures.

      That said, the fact there's been (more than one) effort to revive Unity, even if unwanted by the majority of users, is to me a prime example of one positive to the FLOSS ecosystem: if for whatever inscrutable reason you desire this dire DE, it's yet another option available to you.

      Natch, said positive is arguably also a negative depending on the individual's requirements/inclinations/desire to RTFM.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022