Unity was honestly my biggest complaint about Ubuntu, and a major reason why I suggested people use Ubuntu Gnome or anything other than stock Ubuntu. This is great news.
I wonder what this means for Mir, their Wayland competitor?
It would be a shame if they dumped 4 years of time and money into Mir when they could have been dumping it into Wayland.
From the Ars article at https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/ubuntu-unity-is-dead-desktop-will-switch-back-to-gnome-next-year/:
By switching to GNOME, Canonical is also giving up on Mir and moving to the Wayland display server, another contender for replacing the X window system.
It’s also interesting what will happen to Snap packages.
Those are specifically mentioned in the article as something they plan to keep:
The choice, ultimately, is to invest in the areas which are contributing to the growth of the company. Those are Ubuntu itself, for desktops, servers and VMs, our cloud infrastructure products (OpenStack and Kubernetes) our cloud operations capabilities (MAAS, LXD, Juju, BootStack), and our IoT story in snaps and Ubuntu Core.
Snaps are designed to run on distros other than ubuntu, so they’re pretty much completely independent of Unity.
Yes, but they are developed by Ubuntu developers, the same as Mir.
It’s probably safe to assume that any Ubuntu project unrelated to Unity will continue development.
They already dumped upstart and now Unity, why not Mir?
If there are advantages of Mir in contrast to Wayland please let me know because I know very little about the differences of both display servers (protocols).
I am also pretty happy about the anouncement because it looks like canonical won’t continue with developing an alternative solution for everything in house, instead they will take the effort to improve an already existing solution which will hopefully be advantageous for anyone using Gnome and not running Ubuntu.
With other words, this decision is good news for the Linux desktop.
They’re giving up Mir and moving to Wayland.
It’s been a while since I’ve used Gnome 3 but I remember preferring Unity to it at the time. Not really a big deal for me since most of my “window management” is done inside Emacs and Firefox.
Ubuntu’s entry into phones reminds me a lot of Mozilla’s. Who was asking for this, and why did it have to come at the expense of their desktop offering?
For me Unity seemed to worked better out of the box than Gnome and I’ve been using it daily for years now. If it’s solid and just works, I really just forget about it.
I wonder if they will change the Gnome shell to look like Unity ? I mean the menu bar always at the top, the window buttons on the left…
I used Gnome as my daily driver for a few years, and I really liked it. I’d also imagine that Ubuntu will modify and/or extend Gnome-shell to make it more Unity-like.
I honestly thought this moment would never come. Unity always felt sluggish to use for me.
This is probably for the best. I’ve been avoiding Ubuntu since they switched to Unity, even though I’m not a huge linux user. I only know a couple people who preferred Unity, most people were just kind of confused about why it existed.
Gnome 3 was a rocky transition. As with Windows 8, they made drastic UI changes in order to support touch interaction. Ordinary desktop users were bewildered. I think the biggest fault was not including a familiar “classic mode” from the get-go, which would have eased the transition. Classic mode didn’t appear until two years later.
In 2011, Gnome 3 was not the correct choice for Ubuntu. They were faced with forking Gnome 2 or implementing their own desktop environment, and they chose to create Unity. But Gnome has improved a lot since 3.0, and switching back is an excellent decision, both for Ubuntu and the greater Linux ecosystem.
Gnome users love this decision, but this wasn’t really a decision at all.
We feel like a family, but this choice is shaped by commercial constraints, and those two are hard to reconcile.
This isn’t a matter of choosing Gnome, It’s a matter of needing to give up Unity and falling back to the closest desktop environment. I’m really disappointed by this failure and I have little hope that Gnome will improve that much because of this. If they cannot afford to hold on to Unity then how much support will Gnome actually get?
How much did Canonical contribute to Gnome when they were using it before? I don’t know, but my guess is not a substantial amount. And even if I’m wrong, and they did previously give it tons of support, I don’t know how necessary it is for them to provide any level of support to the Gnome project.
The Gnome project seems to be moving along at their own, fairly regular pace. Gnome on Arch (a distro which makes probably no additions to upstream Gnome) works great. Same for the Ubuntu Gnome remix. Gnome on Debian is only a little less great, but that’s just because they’re pinned to an older version.
Maybe Gnome 3 at first release wasn’t great, but they’ve had time to refine it into a pleasant and relatively easy to use DE. And without being the slow mess that was Unity.
What? I’ll be sincere, I wasn’t expecting that one (even though I don’t use that DE)
Now, is it about money, or disenchantment with phones/convergence? (My answer: yes.)
This is too bad. I understand the business reasons for it and they make sense, but I really like using Unity. The experience feels more cohesive than anything else on Linux I’ve experienced. Before Unity, I used xmonad inside of Gnome. I’m not sure how that works these days, but I imagine I’ll have to go back to it.
xmonad inside of Gnome?!
you can run xmonad inside plasma4 session, and i3 inside gnome3, so I suppose making the first work with the last one is in the realms of possibility.