|
The other day, browsing the web, I came across an interesting opinion article published on Techdrivein in which Manuel José postulated that Ubuntu need a «Project butter" style of Android to improve its performance urgently. |
When I say "emulate Project Butter" I do not mean that Ubuntu should follow Project Butter in every technical detail. Instead, Ubuntu developers should aim for what Google achieved with that project: silky smooth performance and very high levels of refinement.
Obviously, Ubuntu has to improve on many fronts. But the biggest complaint is still Unity's performance. You won't notice problems if you're running Unity on a Core i7 monster (for example), but you will certainly notice them when running Unity on a lower spec device, like a netbook or even a "normal" laptop.
Ironically, the slowness of Unity (and Ubuntu) is not only serious "per se", but also goes against Canonical's own interests. Recall that, after all, Unity was designed so that Ubuntu can be used on devices with small screens and lower technical specifications. Paradoxically, despite not having "official" development by Canonical, Lubuntu or Xubuntu are a WORLD apart from Ubuntu when it comes to performance on computers with low technical specifications.
The Ubuntu Software Center: That Old White Elephant
Surely, you know what I'm talking about: Ubuntu Software Center (USC) takes ages to load. Let's face it, this is the first image that comes to mind when talking about USC. In fact, this problem has been around since its inception.
However, the USC is the most important application as far as Canonical is concerned. It is one of their main sources of income aside from the Ubuntu One Music Store. If the Ubuntu Software Center is the main Ubuntu application, Canonical should start treating it as such.
I agree with Manuel in stating that:
I am not an enemy of Unity, by no means. I like the workflow improvements. […] But I would never negotiate the addition of new functions to the detriment of the overall performance of the system.
You. what do you think?
Source: techdrivein