Shuttleworth explains why Ubuntu left Unity for Gnome

Mark Shuttleworth

The first few days after a Ubuntu version is released are always used by the charismatic Ubuntu leader to speak and express opinions on the landscape of Linux and Ubuntu. This time it has been no less and Mark Shuttleworth has not only talked about the Ubuntu 18.04 nickname, the next LTS version of Ubuntu, but also has explained the reasons why Canonical and Ubuntu have abandoned Unity.

Some reasons that many of us suspected and that Shuttleworth has confirmed in its statements to the eWeek medium.

The main Canonical's interest is to go public, become a big company like Red Hat or Microsoft. That is why before launching an investment round, Canonical has to have all the books of accounts clean, very clean. Shuttleworth explains that Unity (as well as other projects) were not profitable for Canonical and therefore they had to disengage from it. As the leader of Ubuntu says, that it is free or public does not mean that it is profitable. And that is the key word in all of it: cost effectiveness.

Shuttleworth says Ubuntu is currently at its best and how well a bus could pass through it that Ubuntu will continue as if nothing else. An achievement that is partly due to Jane Silber. So it seems that the reason for the change from Unity to Gnome is due to profitability, but Can a Gnu / Linux desktop be profitable?

I remember when Ubuntu announced that it was working on a new desktop that would be called Unity. This desk was born after the strong criticism that users made of Gnome Shell, critics that could not do anything because the Gnome Foundation could do whatever it wants. During these years, Ubuntu with Unity has been safe from annoying changes or strange libraries, but now it will not be like that anymore. Maybe Canonical is more profitable to leave Unity but is also in more danger than with Unity, danger of being abandoned by many users or of having serious bugs. In any case, it seems that Canonical will be the "Microsoft" of Free Software or rather, the "Microsoft" of free software. Do not you think?


17 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   klaus schultz said

    $ huttleworth ...

  2.   Alvis said

    What a shit more than half the gnome shell extensions don't work

  3.   Jonah Trinidad said

    In truth Unity is not the best environment, but it had its thing, leaving it behind in favor of Gnome, it was a mistake. Global menu is the rule and there is still no desktop that surpasses that.

  4.   manbutu said

    We always see the glass half full. Unity desktop is there until 2022 and by making a community on the free unity code, this can create a better unity desktop, a flavor that moves from mobile to tv and game; There are many outside jobs that can be joined https://community.ubuntu.com/t/testing-unity-session-in-18-04/987, http://ubuntu.luxam.at/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiOeLiegA-k&feature=youtu.be,https://sourceforge.net/projects/unity7sl/, https://yunit.io/yunit-project-updates-20170917/, https://yunit.io/yunit-project-updates-20170917/, https://plus.google.com/u/0/110699558853693437587.
    And maybe if I create a unity desktop flavor, I have an idea that ubuntu in its installation would choose to choose environment or shell, this I can do the best it could pass unity desktop and not live with the impositions of third parties like (red hat) that happens in other distros.

    Working low-key sometimes receiving too much unjustified criticism just from canonical and being able to have support from canonical indirectly.

    1.    Hungarian said

      I agree with you.

      All the best

  5.   Adrian I think said

    And I thought they had changed it because I never liked it ... No, seriously, I thought that the failed attempt at ubuntu phone and the famous convergence had triggered that "disenchantment" with Unity.

  6.   Edgar said

    gnome addict since 7.04 ...

  7.   Andrew Daniel Aguirre said

    Unfortunately ubuntu currently does not like me because it became heavier than windows, I tried it on a 5th generation i7 and the truth is a disaster

  8.   Juany Merida said

    I hate unity

  9.   Andrés Fernández said

    Ubuntu was always based on the Gnome ecosystem. Only it didn't use a mutter or Gnome Shell or GDM.

    Unity was developed only by Canonical, it practically only worked in Ubuntu, although it can be installed in Arch thanks to the work of the community.

    I do not understand what you mean by that there may be more errors or talking about strange libraries. It is true that Canonical is no longer in control of the Ubuntu desktop, it is not upstream, but the Gnome shell is easily modifiable. In addition, Canonical thus benefits more from the investment made by other companies, such as Redhat to Gnome.

  10.   Shupacabra said

    At least they would have opted for mate or xfce, gnome-shell is horrible and heavy, it eats my processor

  11.   Julito-kun said

    As the film changes, the case is to complain about something.
    When Unity was launched everything was disappointment, a Canonical error, the worst desktop ever, etc, etc, etc. Except for the very regulars to Ubuntu, the rest freaked out.

    My Unity liked it (or I like it) but I always thought that they should have built it on the basis of Gnome Shell, with extensions and modifications, and in that way take advantage of the advantages of GS and Ubuntu. More or less as it is now.

    If Canonical wanted, it could make an experience, if not the same, very very close to what Unity was on GS.

    1.    Mr. Paquito said

      I agree.

      And I would add that it would be good for Canonical to work on a global menu (like the one Unity had) that gives meaning to the space occupied by that top panel or, failing that, integrate the menu options into the callsign of the active window. In my opinion, at the moment the top panel does little more than eat up vertical space. Unity was exemplary in taking advantage of widescreen displays.

      1.    Julito-kun said

        Sure, that's why I say about a Unity-like experience.
        Something like "(IF) application doesn't use CSD (THEN) use global-menu;" (I have simplified it, logically that is not done with a simple 'if'. But that would be the idea).

        If Canonical wanted to, it could.

  12.   Victor Matía Rodríguez said

    Unity was much better than GNOME. Not even with a stick I play GNOME

  13.   darkneSS said

    Friends, the best thing that ubuntu has done in recent years… fast, simple and stable… 0 copy cache buffer 0 lag in interactions, the truth is that unity only loaded the system more .. thanks for the new system

  14.   Orlando Enrique Nunez Acosta said

    Being the Microsoft of free software, when almost all distros have a version with GNOME….