3 ms·
>Unity is far from perfect, but it is functional. If that's the best you can say about it, then Canonical failed.
by macspoofing 14y ago
>Unity is far from perfect, but it is functional.
If that's the best you can say about it, then Canonical failed.
- JasonFruit 14y agoUnity is functional — you can use it. Its problem is that it's designed to meet the needs of a mostly hypothetical group of people that Canonical hopes will want to use it someday. That's a long-term proposition, and a valid gamble to take — but I don't think it's going to succeed. More importantly for me, I don't care whether it does or not, because I'm neither Unity's nor Ubuntu's target market any more.
- Lashawndazqd 14y agoOne of the things I have tried to do the last decade or so is set up Linux for the "non leets" like my mom, girlfriends, friends / family etc. This is Canonical's target audience and not a single one of them likes the Unity interface. While not a scientific study I just don't think it's hitting the mark. Lately, I've been putting MINT on a few people's machines, and the love the "windows like" feel (necessary for the transition) and it's still based on Debian and very solid.
- gnuvince 14y agoMint Cinamon or Mate?
- ameen 14y agoIt's leagues better than the train-wreck that is Gnome 3. It's functional and doesn't get in the way of my work. What more do I need it for?