Ubuntu Unity Becoming An Official Flavor With 22.10 Release

[evasb]

I think promoting a deprecated shell that will forever depend on Xorg is a bad idea.

[dremon_nl]

Unity was quite nice. Gnome is mostly unusable out of the box, but with 10-15 extensions it's more or less okay. However, they are often quite buggy, slow and have memory leaks.
Personally I used Arc Menu, app indicator support, output device chooser, dash to panel, gsconnect, and few others, to mimic the Plasma desktop.

[Vistaus]

I think promoting a deprecated shell that will forever depend on Xorg is a bad idea.

Why would it not be ported to Wayland? Do you have any source for this? AFAIK they're working on a successor to Unity that *will* run on Wayland.

[Vistaus]

And they're stuck on legacy X.Org Server

For the time being, but they have an OG Unity successor in the works which is currently in alpha state and *will* run on Wayland through Mir.

[mppix]

As other people have said, Unity was ultimately no worse than the current Gnome desktop. I think the current Ubuntu desktop is one of the ugliest desktops Ubuntu has ever had.

I also regret that Canonical didn't finish Unity 8. This would have become the best and most modern Linux desktop in my opinion, and I've been monitoring the progress closely.

The current problem with Ubuntu is mainly that it is slow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMfqCzbSmQU

It's not just the Snap apps that are slow to launch. My Void Linux with XFCE feels like a McLaren compared to the current Ubuntu in terms of boot times, login, shutdown and UI responsiveness.

It might be helpful for Michael to test which Linux systems boot the fastest again, since he hasn't tested this in a long time, and to compare Ubuntu's boot times with Alpine Linux, Void Linux, MX Linux, and Clear Linux.

If he does the test on an HDD, big revelations will probably happen.

Lol. Debian + Gnome Wayland + Flatpak apps is fast and responsive. What are they doing to it?

Ps. Why would anyone test anything on a HDD anymore?

[M@GOid]

What's the difference between the two? It seems to have the same appearance.

You will start to see differences the moment you click the icons in the top bar. Gnome have this over-simplified thingy, that have a lot less functionality than what Unity provides. There is more missing, like the inability of pining new icons on the sidebar on Gnome.

Over time the Gnome version got a little better, but despite being there almost 5 years, the Unity version still feels something more polished than what Gnome is today, at least for those who used Unity daily.

[M@GOid]

Ps. Why would anyone test anything on a HDD anymore?

Heh, I feel that. I have a old backup laptop and boy do new distros feel sluggish in it. Is the same thing on Windows.

[andre30correia]

I think promoting a deprecated shell that will forever depend on Xorg is a bad idea.

i think someday like mate or cinnamon they will port to wayland, i will give try in this when it arrives, unity was great DE, the workflow was great, much better than gnome even with a lot of extensions, since the extentions sometimes break

[ATLief]

Gotta keep Gnome on their toes

[ATLief]

If Unity doesn't run natively on Wayland then that's a huge problem indeed imho.

Aren't there X.org to Wayland comparability layers? The performance would be worse, but still usable for the vast majority of people imo.