Canonical CEO admits Unity was a painful change

[Gremlinzzz]

Canonical CEO admits Unity was a painful change/ yeah as she secretly goes home and uses Windows 7

Thats great think i can shut my spell checker off.

[cariboo]

Canonical CEO admits Unity was a painful change/ yeah as he secretly goes home and uses Windows 7

At least read the article, before commenting, Jane Silber is a he?

[aysiu]

Canonical CEO admits Unity was a painful change/ yeah as he secretly goes home and uses Windows 7

Isn't Jane Silber a woman?

[KiwiNZ]

No pain, no gain

[winh8r]

I love how Jane Silber said that Mint is for people who are "not necessarily concerned about security updates." What a subtle way to try to get people to not use Mint.

Funny that! I thought exactly the same thing when I read that part.
It was as though she was acknowledging the existence of Mint but almost relegating it to the level of a "pretend" altertnative to a real operating system.

Although it would have been impossible for anyone to write an article entitled "Unity - A roaring success across the board"

We shall wait and see what the next few years bring, but I do believe that a lesson has been learned somewhere in Canonicalville.

[SemiExpert]

I love how Jane Silber said that Mint is for people who are "not necessarily concerned about security updates." What a subtle way to try to get people to not use Mint.

I do think that Mint appeals to "people who want codecs pre-installed." However, the fact that many users are adverse to Unity has impacted the popularity of Mint. From my own experience, Mint sometimes introduces bugs that weren't there with Ubuntu, such as the inability of Mint 12 to support sleep mode on hardware that had worked just fine with Ubuntu 11.10. I don't have a problem with Ubuntu's policy as far as codec support, but I also don't buy into the popular mythology surrounding Mint. I don't see it as being a more polished alternative to Ubuntu. Far from it. My own issues with Unity surround the feature deletions for 12.04.

[JDShu]

I love how Jane Silber said that Mint is for people who are "not necessarily concerned about security updates." What a subtle way to try to get people to not use Mint.

Does anybody know what she is referring to? Do the mint repositories lack package signing the way Arch does?

[Simian Man]

Does anybody know what she is referring to? Do the mint repositories lack package signing the way Arch does?

She's a businesswoman. When has anyone involved with business ever been honest? The things that Mint provides on top of Ubuntu should have no security concerns. All important packages (kernel, ssl, apache etc.) come from Ubuntu's repos. This whole thing is just PR lies.

[JDShu]

She's a businesswoman. When has anyone involved with business ever been honest? The things that Mint provides on top of Ubuntu should have no security concerns. All important packages (kernel, ssl, apache etc.) come from Ubuntu's repos. This whole thing is just PR lies.

Nice, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Shame on her.

[cariboo]

Nice, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Shame on her.

I think you should take both an article from The Reg, and someone that posts in the Cafe with a grain of salt.

In the last Ask Mark irc session, Mark Shuttleworth gave Mint a big thumbs up for what they are doing. The above applies to me too