Question about Linux UI "portability"

[EssoAir]

Ok, so I really love trying out different flavors of Linux (I will not be referring to it as GNU/Linux I'm aware of the inaccuracy of calling it Linux but please do not bring that up in this thread) but I find myself always preferring Unity UI from Canonical. It runs great on Ubuntu and I've looked in to running it on Debian or other OSes and have hit a lot of dead ends. I've seen some efforts to port it to other things but nothing that I saw as complete as like KDE et al. My question is not "hey can sombodies spend the next 2 years porting this for free kthx". What I'd like to know in a general sense, why is Unity not able to be run on other Linux flavors? I know its resource intensive, but assuming the computer it's on is capable of running it fine, what are the true roadblocks that dont allow it to simply be installed from any old git resource?

 

[MrConfusion]

Check from Wikipedia, especifically "Availability", but essentially:

Unity is a little bit "Windowsian" approach to a wm in the sense that integration level with stuff is higher than even in Gnome on average.

Personally I suspect the main reason is that there is too little incentive to fight with it, after all, pretty pixel patterns are just that...

If it's the looks and effects you're after you can get the cool whooshing and blingbling by using Compiz and fiddling enough.

( Or you can forget about that crap and just use dwm (high learning curve) or wmii (lower learning curve, easily tweakable) . )

 

[comradekingu]

Because what canonical builds, nobody wants to touch, and canonical is either making it that way, or want people to adopt it.

See upstart.

Unity isnt a linux UI, its a ubuntu centric one.

That bond will probably extend to requiring Mir in the future. And as long as canonical doesn't care about breaking other peoples stuff, nobody is going to touch it.

They cant ship unity on phones, nor set top boxen. Building hype checks out, anything past that amounts to burning tablet/phone battery life to the point where it gets unusable. Canonical also has an image problem amongst the other camps. And as long as they are shipping spyware, they will continue to sink.

Also Gnu /  Linux / OS / Flavor / Spin / Build

 

[ShleeDragon]

ubuntu UX is made by programmers.. that's why it's so ugly, unusable and unportable.

 

[EssoAir]

Thx for the replies! It seems to me (from the perspective of a programmer still getting the basics) that you could write some kind of compatibility application. some kind of container that Unity would run in so that all of its "calls" to external resources could first be delt with by the container.


So, if its calling certain basic information like a directory, then the container passes it on to the OS.


But if the container detects attempts to access data specific to Ubuntu, the container stops it in its tracks and feeds it fake information to keep it happily thinking its running on top of Ubuntu

that way it could in theory run on any OS even OS X and Windows if properly ported

 

[ekianjo]

who cares about unity anyway?

 

[Asiyura]

^

 

[EssoAir]

who cares about unity anyway?

^

Like I said in the OP, I do. But Im aware that its an unpopular opinion

 

[Cloudef]

Unity needs patched libraries that canoncial hasn't even tried to get upstream AFAIK.

Basically to get them running on other distro, you need to compile and use older versions of the libraries with ubuntu patches, which is PITA and not worth the effort.

(Though for example arch linux on AUR there are pkgbuilds for these)

Just having the source out there doesn't make things easy.

 

[ekianjo]

Like I said in the OP, I do. But Im aware that its an unpopular opinion

SO you are aware nobody is going to work on what you suggest. There's no interest.

 

[mcobit]

If you want a recent debian with unity, just use ubuntu.

 

[MrConfusion]

Thx for the replies! It seems to me (from the perspective of a programmer still getting the basics) that you could write some kind of compatibility application. some kind of container that Unity would run in so that all of its "calls" to external resources could first be delt with by the container.

Too complicated, you do not need to go so far. A wrapper would not help anyway...

Are you thinking about taking up this task yourself?

Unity is no single "blob" of a program, it is more a sum of it's parts: A customized component here, another there, interdependent. Modify enough to compile the clearly unique parts (like the compiz plug), then see how well it works and fix brokent things you really need, hide or ignore the rest. Then it's a matter of trying to find whatall has been changed in Gnome&Co that you really need.

I am sure that if you do not hold too high expectations and take it as an excercise of reading and trying to understand someone else's code it can be both an educational experience and fairly fun too . In a "gnash-your-teeth-and-eat-your-tie"-kind of fun way.

 

[EssoAir]

Doing it myself? LOLNO! I havent even touched C yet. Hope to get there soon.


@ekianjo I pretty clearly state that im not asking anyone to do this for me. I was asking why its /not be done/ not /someone plz do this/

 

[ekianjo]

@ekianjo I pretty clearly state that im not asking anyone to do this for me. I was asking why its /not be done/ not /someone plz do this/

Because nobody cares. I have never seen anyone who's a fan of Unity, at best I see people who live with it and tolerate it, most people hate it because you can't do the same thing as with the other managers out there.

So you must be some kind of exception (just like I don't understand your unlimited love for Android, I guess that has to go with it) and no serious Linux user is thinking, on a given day "gosh, I really like Arch, but do I miss Unity!". 

 

[EssoAir]

Are you for some reason incapable of accepting alternate opinions to your own? I dont even understand why you posted in this thread

 

[Asiyura]

He is just voicing the majority's opinion : Unity isn't the right choice if you want a portable windows manager.

It's made by canonical for ubuntu and it's not a popular windows manager in the realm of programmers/linux tinkerers.

Try LXDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon or others windows managers instead.

 

[ekianjo]

Are you for some reason incapable of accepting alternate opinions to your own? I dont even understand why you posted in this thread

Because I don't really understand the point of your post in the first place. If you like Unity, use Ubuntu.

If you want Unity to run on something else, forget it, it's never going to happen. What's so hard to understand ?

And your post's title is clearly misguided, your question is not about "Linux UI portability", it's about Unity's portability ONLY. All other windows managers run on most distros fine and are very portable. Heck, even most of them run on Pandora.

PS: I don't see where my post was offensive, by the way, and if you have a problem with people having a different opinion than you, you probably shouldn't spend time on the Internet forums.

 

[mcobit]

As an alternative to unity you can try gnome shell. Should be available in stable debian and some other distros using gnome 3.


It has sort of the same searchabilities like unity but has a lot less bloat and won't show you ads and stuff.

 

[comradekingu]

or pantheon

 

[MrConfusion]

 I have never seen anyone who's a fan of Unity, at best I see people who live with it and tolerate it, most people hate it because you can't do the same thing as with the other managers out there.

Weeeellll... to be fair I would say anyone who even uses the term "Window manager" properly is on his way right out of the target audience, don't you think?-)

Unity is very successfull for the group of users who would not touch Linux with a ten foot pole if the likes of Ubuntu did not exist.

For those people Unity is one of the things that makes Ubuntu so nice for them... Unity in Ubuntu is a major part of the glue between WindowsOSX and Linux for those people. It gives a somewhat familiar surface to grasp.

So it has it's place and justification for existence. And it's fans. And it is also beneficial for those who shun it in the form of exposure and things like gaining better driver support for others too.

But not all users of Ubuntu were happy when Unity appeared and I guess some even headed to plain Debian because of it? Unity was a very clear signal that Ubuntu is heading and aiming for the masses who never came from the world of Windows 98SE and start menus...

...much less those of us who thought OSF/Motif was just a bit too much on the fancy side with the pastel coloured Window decorations ;-).

So...

I was asking why its /not be done/ not /someone plz do this/

I kind of see where EssoAir is coming from in the sense that Ubuntu does have a very "popular

opinions' general acceptance of how a modern OS should look, respond and function" feel to it. So why not port that feel elsewhere too?

Problem is by the time you start having some idea about how to transfer that over to your distribution of choice you no longer give a **** about any of that stuff and just want to do some truly interesting things instead.

Which really sums up both the reaction here and the reasons why Unity has stayed Ubuntu only quite nicely.

Basically: It stays Ubuntu only, because the only Linux coders who give a **** probably get paid (stranger things have happened) by Canonical to deliver the said ****?

In fact most of the UNIX coders I know who have adopted and welcomed the SteveJobsianLike vision of what on OS should look like wall themselves up in OSX now. Many of my former acquintances did that. And many of them praise Ubuntu, but do not use it except for the old PC they never use anyway.