Slashdot Mirror
Preliminary Benchmarks: Unity vs. Gnome-Shell
fatalGlory writes "Despite some initial reservations about Gnome-shell, it appears to be coming out very nicely. In some preliminary benchmarking tests I've been conducting, Ubuntu's Unity desktop on 11.04 Natty uses roughly double the memory that Gnome-shell uses."
The only gnome comparison is on Fedora. Why not compare with Gnome 2 on Natty? All it takes is a different selection on GDM. For that matter why not Gnome 3 from a PPA on Natty?
I feel the urge to troll because I loved using ubuntu until 11.04, but now have switched to kubuntu 11.04. Instead I will say I look forward to the continual improvements that will be made to both unity and gnome shell.
What more do you need to know? I installed (and fully updated) Natty this weekend, and crashed it 3 times in 20 minutes with different Unity bugs. Then, I hit up the goog, and found out how to get my classic gnome interface back (it's in a dropdown at the login prompt). Waste of 22 minutes, if you ask me. I can't imagine how much time the Unity devs wasted on that crap.
It's really not that big a deal these days, you want to use memory, because memory is FAST, and in comparison to the old days, dirt cheap. Loading things into memory is not an automatic sign of bloat, sometimes it is a sign of doing what you should, putting memory into use.
Absolutely worthless comparison, as it compares vastly different distributions. He isnt even comparing 2 debian based distros, or trying to control for different running services; why is there not even an attempt to isolate the memory usage of the DE / WM?
Perhaps this could have been useful as a comparison of distro memory usage, but even in that it fails-- its comparing an installed Debian distro to live-CD based Fedora; why wasnt fedora installed and compared (perhaps using VMs?), or Ubuntu run from LiveCD?
just saying
It's as if someone designed that "benchmark" to be criticisable in every possible way!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
wtf?!?!
unity on ubuntu on a laptop vs gnome-shell on fedora (livecd) on laptop vs XFCE on ubuntu on desktop.
laptop and desktop have different RAM
laptop and desktop have different VGA and drives
the only thing the systems have in common is the keyboard!
Worthless shit written by a christfag.
What the hell is with this obvious blog spam? This "benchmark" is even worse than the shit being pooped out by Phoronix.
everyone knows that! it's built on a solid, stable unix foundation, with a 'keep it simple' philosophy that guarantees performance and stability! with 12 overhead cams and a dual plated stainless steel cooking surface, your family will be sure to love the new Unity.
This article is seriously flawed. Its comparing Ubuntu 11.04 installed to HD on a laptop vs. Fedora 15 running from the CD as a live system on said laptop vs. his own mash-up of Ubuntu using xfce4 running on a desktop. Furthermore, all he looks at is 'Memory Usage' but doesn't describe how he determined memory use so his numbers are probably flawed/meaningless. Lastly, how does software rendering come out ahead and feel more 'responsive' then hardware *accelerated* rendering let alone livecd vs. HD install? The author is a total troll and has no clue what he is talking about.
Yeah, that's what we need.. a bunch of software engineers that don't understand fundamental scientific principals.
If ever software engineer was a creationist, then every software engineer would be an idiot.. and the quality of software would drop accordingly.
We may even get to the point where a "software engineer" thinks it's ok to benchmark software using totally inconsistent configurations..
He says Gnome-Shell uses software rendering.. It's not true, fedora ships free 3D drivers for Intel, AMD/ATI and NVidia now.
Also, why use VLC when he could use Totem on all 3.And Why does he use apt-get in his test ?
Even though I like the result, it seems like a pretty lame test.
Twice the memory is an understatement. Not to mention the removal of a ton of features. Boo, Natty. Come out with O. O. soon, and make it Gnome again, and more similar to 10.10
it's about livecd performance. this is irrelevent to my interests as i'm much more interested in benchmarks for actual installs.
do people use livecd's for anything other than backtrack and repair? what's the point of this story?
I don't know why /. has it in for Unity, but I suspect the only reason this irrelevant piece is being posted is to get in their digs.
A proper usability study would be very interesting to see.
Yes, because the best use of memory is it never being used.
Pointless benchmarks. How about more commentary on usability speed? My fairly typical 2008-spec desktop rig has 4gb of RAM and my aging monitor is 1920x1080. My slightly battered old notebook is not even far behind this. So why do developers insist on making using as little memory as possible even if you happen to have an ass-load of it?
Why do they have to waste my time making me click extra, hiding things away just to save another 50px of screen real estate?
Since Natty, Linux usabilty seems to be is taking backwards steps.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Others have correctly pointed out that comparing memory usage on two different distros is pointless. On top of that, comparing total memory usage is stupid.
Look, you have memory in your system to be used. If you dug into it and found out that most of that memory consisted of massive, unused libraries, duplicate code, empty datastructures, or garbage that wasn't getting cleaned up, then sure, you could give it a hard time. But if it's full of cached images and icons so that the interface can be quicker and more responsive, well, isn't that why you have all that RAM?
A perfect program/OS would very quickly gobble up all available memory by storing and caching useful stuff...and then free it up the instant it was needed elsewhere. That turns out to be harder than it sounds, since procs generally don't know or care about totally memory usage, but still, the ideal should not be the opposite extreme.
Windows XP also uses more memory than Windows 3.1. Going on memory alone isn't enough to compare the two.
And hey, big surprise, comments disabled on that article. "You must log in to post a comment." And even if I did want yet another account just for commenting on a single blog, I don't see anywhere to register.
Just for fun, I'll respond here. I might even try to email it to him, if that works.
There are three fundamental entities that make up our universe, matter, energy and information.
I'm not sure information is an "entity" in any relevant sense. It's a phenomenon. More in a moment...
Now, creating and communicating information is demonstrably a mental process, requiring an intelligent mind to create and to receive the information.
Actually, it's demonstrably a physical process, one which can be performed entirely by machines, unless you are willing to describe my laptop as an "intelligent mind." But it depends what you mean by "information", in this case, as you point out:
In this way, information is distinct from data, which Shannon unfortunately referred to as "information" in his work on statistical-level information-theory, leading to the present ambiguity.
If that is the way in which information is distinct from data, then I work with a hell of a lot more data than information. My computer creates, interprets, communicates, and manipulates all sorts of data that no "intelligent mind" will ever touch, unless, again, you're willing to allow that my cell phone is an "intelligent mind."
This reality has been demonstrated amply in the book by Gitt and is expressed in a streamlined form in this lecture by Wilder-Smith.
I'm not willing to buy and read a book, but maybe I'll listen to the lecture.
Yet, so many software engineers remain evolutionists.
...what? Unless you're referring to the arguments you referenced via an amazon link and an mp3 file, I see nothing in your argument which requires intelligent design or negates evolution. Even if I accepted your premise that information must have an intelligent designer -- sorry, a god -- as its originator, as a "software engineer," I'd hope you understand that humans can and have written programs which simulate the genetic process at various levels -- why, then, could this god not design evolution as part of the "program" of the universe, fire it off and let it run, exactly as human beings do all the time?
Despite interpreting and often designing language conventions every day, very few software engineers seem to have considered the implications of language and information-theory for genetics, biology and metaphysics.
Again, out of the blue, you're introducing a new topic -- languages -- along with committing a stupidly trivial fallacy. Just guessing here, because you didn't actually deliver an argument, but if you did, I imagine it would look like this:
1. Humans can create languages.
2. Humans have intelligent minds.
3. Given 1 and 2, intelligent minds can create languages.
4. DNA is a language.
5. Given 3 and 4, an intelligent mind can create DNA (the language).
Therefore, only an intelligent mind could have created DNA.
Both 5 and the conclusion are absurd on their face, and I hope you can see that. 5 is fallacious because 3 asserts only that intelligent minds can create languages, not that they can create all languages. Even if 5 were sound, the conclusion is fallacious because 5 asserts only that an intelligent mind can create DNA, and not that only an intelligent mind can create (or could have created) DNA.
And again, what about this falsifies evolution? If it worked, it would falsify abiogenesis. Evolution can happen without intervention once we have DNA, just as a program can run without human intervention once we start it running.
Why is this? Well that's a discussion for another post.
If you're going to m
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
both gnome 3.0 and unity look like they were designed for smartphones and tablets.
The reason why the devs did this is because users are familiar with the smartphone interface, so putting the same interface on the linux desktop would make transition easier.
But - a 1900x1200 pixel pc desktop is not the same as a tiny 100x100 pixel smartphone screen. pc desktop users with a normal size keyboard and big sized monitor have very different requirements.
Is this just self promotion?
Unity still has some quirky behavior, and frankly I'm just not a fan in general.
Gnome-shell is close, yet far away. It's more extensible seems like, which is promising. I just want two things:
-When I highlight an 'application icon' in the activities view, automatically show only the windows for that application in the window previews.
-Provide a means by which I can start typing and search window title bar contents (like KDE and Compiz Window Title Filter).
You have me sold on those two capabilities, which don't seem to exist. The gnome-shell-extensions have most of my other main requests covered.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I guarantee, people who are anorexic are quite unhealthy.
No fat is a bad thing.
Ever since I upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04 my Desktop doesn't redraw. Whatever was the last app on the screen leaves its last bitmap up when I close the last app. And switching between apps takes about 700ms, even when there's not much going on.
My PC is an old P4/2.4GHz/2GB with Intel 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE integrated graphics, so Ubuntu refused to install Unity and left GNOME. Yeah, it's old, but one reason I prefer Linux to Windows (or Mac) is that I expect to get the full performance out of the old stuff, not the planned obsolescence of bloatware commercial OS'es. But am I stuck with a crappy desktop now? Forced to buy new HW to keep using my "free" OS?
--
make install -not war
If you can't tell principals from principles, maybe a field that requires attention to detail and correct use of logic, grammar, and syntax isn't for you.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Maybe they're doing a great job of caching some things, but they're mostly hiding the applications I use and making me wait for the animated graphics to pop up different parts of the menu system so I can get at them, so I don't count that as a win.
So far, Unity has gotten me interested in taking the time to learn Lubuntu or Xubuntu, so it may end up having been useful, but I don't think that was how they intended it,
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hey, Admins, can you make that spammer go away?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
but since when has memory footprint been a "benchmark?" Really, we're talking roughly half a gig here, and who's running these on a system without at least 2? The system used for this has 3 GiB, so the largest user consumes just 20% of RAM - so what? If a couple hundred meg is that important, use the CLI. Perhaps there's a design tradeoff - use more RAM for faster performance. You sure can't tell from this "benchmark."
This is just an advertisement for a "look at me" blog.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yes, because the best use of memory is it never being used by your desktop shell, thus leaving it for legitimately memory-hungry actual applications.
FTFY
I started using Unity a few weeks ago. Now just taking a glance at the new features in Gnome3 seems like the same new features are offered... The sidebar, new window management, quick search to launch applications. Am I missing something? Are these 2 totally different projects that are delivering practically the same features to the end user?
I think it's an assumption that if something consumes more RAM that it therefore must be slower and not as responsive. To really say if a desktop environment responds faster you'd have to come up with a way to measure lag, not RAM usage, perhaps Unity is pre-loading items in RAM such that it will respond better to user input, I DON'T know this to be the case, I'm just saying, if we all run 2 GB + ram who care between 200 and 300 MB of usage by the desktop?
I've been using Unity for a few weeks, and while the new interface at first was annoying, I now find that I very much appreciate the way that the screen space is used, it's just not what everyone has always done, but I do think it's a better layout and functionality improvement.
I guess I said it Unity is a Compiz plug in. I Yeah ad to brake it to figure that one out. So its a Plugin....... So.... It going to use more system resources, simple because its not a native to Gnome, it is native to Compiz. So... Just change your session to "the classic Ubuntu" done.
So I just killed about an hour listening to the mp3 and thinking about how I'd respond... not much new there.
Starts with a few intelligence-insulting analogies, like "Bricks don't build houses." Yeah, bricks also don't reproduce.
"We ought to be able to put the contents of life into a test tube and see that it would build life." In other words, if we can't put something in a test tube and get something out of it, we require an intelligent agency for that process? Seriously? If we assume this guy isn't as dumb as he seems to be, and that by "test tube" he meant "any artificial apparatus", then we have experiments which show that things like amino acids can be formed through entirely natural, mechanical processes.
He then goes on to describe intelligence as the "third column of the universe" -- that is, matter, energy, and information -- and also that "nobody knows how to define it." Actually, we can define information, and we can do so quite precisely. If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't be claiming it's a fundamental property of the universe. When we do use precise definitions, we find that either DNA is not information, or that information does not require a designer, but this argument is almost deliberately vague.
He then goes on to talk about codes, pointing out that SOS is only a code by convention, and that if we didn't have that convention, SOS wouldn't communicate "distress" or, really, anything at all -- that sequences of syllables, or letters, or nucleotides, are meaningless unless some meaning is assigned to them -- that in this case, without the ribosomes, a particular sequence of DNA wouldn't correspond to a particular sequence of DNA into a protein. So he's already given up his premise, which he's repeated constantly, that a convention can only be established when two intelligences come together and agree on something, unless he's willing to call ribosomes "intelligent".
So why couldn't ribosomes be what assigns the "meaning"? Why is an additional entity required? Well, he says, ribosomes are needed to decode DNA, but ribosomes are themselves encoded in DNA, so there's a chicken-and-egg problem. Sounds a bit to me like irreducible complexity, and we know how well that's worked out. It's exactly the same argument -- "Half an eye is useless, so the eye couldn't evolve by steps!" It turns out that half an eye is useful, just not for quite the same things a whole eye is -- and in this case, there are entirely plausible ideas for how this mechanism could itself have evolved piecewise. (Yes, evolution can happen without DNA, it's just that DNA is the mechanism that won.)
Finally, and this is where I'm really disappointed in the supposed "software engineer" who linked to this -- the lecturer starts talking about the information that's encoded in DNA, and how much work we've had to put into just finding out what the sequence is -- that "our best computers can scarcely..." what, assemble DNA sequences? Takes some pretty heavy hardware (you want at least 24 gigs of RAM), but it's far from our best. Yes, the Human Genome Project was massive, but these days, it's fast and cheap to sequence stuff -- you could almost do it as a hobby, it's that cheap. On top of all of this, when he says that the amount of information in DNA is "almost infinite" -- there are a number of things I could nitpick, but really? It's not only finite, it's trivial by modern standards -- the entire genome is, according to Wikipedia, just over 3 billion base pairs. If each can be A, T, G, or C, that's 4 options, so you can store it in 2 bits, or 4 of them to a byte, so about 750 million bytes -- just barely doesn't fit on a single CD-R.
None of the above paragraph really affects his argument, but it shows just how little he knows about information in the modern age.
Is there anything about this argument that is worth the time I just put into it?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Hate to say it but they both suck anyway. Updated to 11.4 and unity. Took about 30 minutes to decide to try out Gnome 3. I should also mention I love(d) Gnome 2 with Cairo Dock and Compiz. Now Im back to KDE. Running 4.x. I persoally hate both Unity and Gnome 3. The interface is just pain awkwrd, and yes I took the tie to customize a bit hoping it would be usable by setting up my own task bars, icons etc....
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Apparently you've never heard of memory caching/scaling? Optimally 100% of memory would be used at all times.
Cute story. Bad analogy.
I have a nice new laptop now, W510 (thanks to my brother), and I have Ubuntu 11.04 on it.
In the 3 weeks that I have it, it crashed on me about 5-6 times. It gets stuck, the keyboard/mouse stop responding. I can't ssh into it either, so I have to shut it down with the power button (ouch).
Also this is my first experience with 11.04 and I am hating it. Except for Unity (which I don't use, to me the benchmark is like this: switch to classic), I am finding all sorts of real problems with this distro.
It is amazing that ssh crashes so often now. Yes, the ssh client stops responding 1 in 3 times that I use it, it is an embarrassment for a GNU/Linux distro. I switched to Debian on another machine already and it looks more and more now that I won't be able to keep Ubuntu on this one either.
You can't handle the truth.
yeah except the usage heuristics fall short almost all the time, leaving the machine bloated and clunky as each app assumes it is the center of your universe on that machine.. how about using what's needed, and dumping what's not? I don't mind a bit of caching, but this relatively new trend of caching almost everything whether it's really needed or not is fucking stupid.
That's the main problem, cache management isn't a task to be left entrusted to applications.
If one should test desktop performance, XFCE, Gnome, LXDE, KDE and at least one more should be standard. Besides, I think Gnome and KDE should be merged.
Windowmaker
No. The best use of memory is holding large user data (like huge images; or substantial parts of the video you're watching). The next best use of memory is caching files. Only then comes internal application data, and at the end executable code.
Also note that while memory is fast compared to the disk, it is slow compared to the cache. The less you have to reload data from main memory, the better.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Never tried Sabayon, but I might check it out. I tried Mint, hated the menu, but otherwise thought it quite nice. Tried PCLinuxOS and liked it quite a lot, but am wary of its over-reliance on TexStar.
We moved our old laptop to Lubuntu 10.04 (=Ubuntu 10.04 with LXDE), which is not officially supported but nonetheless considered an LTS release. The laptop now uses less than 200MB RAM when it's running with a number of applications (Thunderbird, Chromium, Pidgin, some shells and file managers) and almost a dozen network mounts. The services have not been optimized, so there's probably a few which could be dropped.
The desktops have 8GB each, and relatively recent quad core processors, so they're adequately provisioned. However, I dislike the idea of devoting ever more resources to doing nothing (desktop environment), so I'm biding my time before deciding which way to go with them. They're on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, so we still have a couple of years with Gnome 2. From what I've seen so far, both Unity and Gnome 3 are unappealing. KDE4 is a bit better. LXDE rocks, if you change a few of its default applications. However, it needs a graphical menu editor to be acceptable to the masses.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Since gnome shell nowadays is just nothing more than an extended window manager :-(
Gone are the days of a desktop. I just wonder what they thought about sacrificing all the desktop space.
I am glad that there are alternatives to Gnome. It was nice knowing you but Gnome 3 in many areas is a step in the wrong direction
in some in the right.
Hey look, I conducted some benchmarks, but.. the test parameters are different. One uses software rendering, the other hardware rendering. Oh and also, it's not really a benchmark. I just looked at memory usage.
I think I'll post some totally useless article about my totally useless benchmark and then, uhh, I forgot what I was on to.
Never mind.
...is this (linked) site? But irony has it that it is not trustworthy.
Yeah, and there isn't even a car in it... This is /. For F*ck Sake!
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Just saying. People didn't pick Ubunutu for the G, they picked it because it is the easiest, most "stable" (it just works), most friendly out there.
Lets give the distro's you mention a quick review shall we for the average Ubuntu user:
Gnome3 and Unity are a foul thing and Canonical sees to have swallowed them whole but the sad fact is that NOBODY else has caught up to Ubuntu or even realized what makes them the most used Linux distro by miles. It would not be unfair to say there are more Ubuntu users then other distro's combined. To then say that Ubunutu users can, will or even WANT to flee to another distro over a mere desktop is silly.
You forget just how many Ubuntu users can just install another desktop. XFCE and LXCD are near perfect Gnome2 copies and then you keep all the goodness that is Ubuntu without the horrid desktops.
Trust me, I am a nerd and HAVE tried all of the above in the past. But as I got older I also realize that I have more fun coding stuff and breaking my head over problems then than in how to get java running or a new version of some utility.
Ubuntu MIGHT be replaced but it will NOT be by one of the old companies that bled users when they switched to Ubuntu. People left them for a reason.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You have a fair point. Really this is the same thing MS got blasted for for loading to much of Windows in memory that people didn't like.
Memory is fast, HD is slow (especially on low memory devices like cheap Intel netbooks (AMD delivers netbooks without artificial memory limits)) so load up the memory.
But people are used to thinking of memory as a precious resource and want to have a nice big un-used chunk all the time... some have a point in that they then will use it later, most don't. I seen people rant about a computer using all their memory when all they do is browse the net... So? It is using your resources fully. What exactly is the issue?
I think Unity and Gnome3 have issues in basic usability and stability. Memory usage? I could care less.
But for some it matters. A few of them are right, most are wrong or should simply buy their PC's a little smarter.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Almost a year ago now I installed Ubuntu for a neighbor who is nice enough but whose IQ is below average. And she had NO problem with it. Icons switched? Not an issue. She just dealt with it rather then throw a hissy fit like most of Slashdot.
She managed her updates nicely, just clicking them BUT unfortunately that also included the 11.04 upgrade... and since then she can't find anything. Yes, she is stupid but wasn't Unity supposed to be easier for people like her? The average Jean? The people who clean for a living? Well, I now have to install something else this weekend because of Unity. Probably use xubuntu.
The switch to Linux from Windows just meant no more viruses and spy-ware. Everything else she needs, which is just IM and the web, worked the same.
Unity broke that. There is your usability test right there.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Wow, I thought, somebody did a descend evaluation of GnomeShell and Unity. So I followed the link. Some may think, this was my first mistake. but then I read the article and the first words were "This morning I decided to play with the Fedora based Gnome3". Well super this is news? I played with Gnome3 on Ubuntu weeks ago. Oh yes I didn't post results of that playing and so nobody considered this news.
To be honest the memory figures look strange to say the least. He compares different applications in combination with different desktop shells and oh wonder he gets arbitrary memory usage results. The best is, the author points out some of the flaws of his approach. So there is no information in the article, beside that "nick" fiddled around with Gnome3.
For a real test you have first define a set of goals, questions and metrics and then perform tests according to the test method. You could test productivity. But to do so, you need people to play around with it for a week or two to learn the new UI and adapt to it. You could check how the memory usage of the application changes over a longer period of time. And then you can only check if the use increases over time which implies a memory leak. Other things can be difficult, as unity is a Compiz plugin and GnomeShell runs separate which implies a different architecture and therefor different usage results in ps or top.
You could also test the responsiveness of the system under load (as this is a important property for users). Or you can start up the system and check how much memory is already in use (free). But the desktop should be configured completely the same. And when nautilus is running in configuration A then it must also run in configuration B. If you use a desktop image, it has to be the same image on all machines/test sets, same resolution, color depth etc. The kernel version, X11 version all should be the same. In short you have to test it on Ubuntu X.Y and use all three desktop variants. You also should test this with other distributions and of course you should test it on different hardware. but always you have to start with an installation without desktop environment, then add the designated thing to the system make the tests and then go to the next version.
All the following benchmarks were done with Ubuntu 11.04 32 bits on a Dell Latitude D510 Intel Pentium M 1.60 GHz with 768 MB RAM, Intel Graphics, no proprietary drivers. Gnome Shell comes from the Ubuntu Gnome 3Team PPA. Unity and Gnome Classic uses Gnome 2.32. Gnome Classic uses metacity; compiz is disabled. I used the same applications for each : Firefox, Gnome Terminal, Nautilus. After Clean Boot Unity : 155.18 MB Gnome Shell : 125.09 MB Gnome Classic : 143.86 MB Application set 1 (as seen in the original article) : Unity : 254.69 MB Gnome Shell : 232.78 MB Gnome Classic : 245.26 MB
Mountains of technical data can sometimes not answer the obvious question. Does the distro work for you? Is it responsive? Is the UI comfortable an intuitive? My personal experience with Natty is that I love it. But then again, I'm an Ubuntu head, so that's probably biased. Would XFCE run faster? Sure. Would I like it as well? Probably not, although I don't dislike XFCE at all. Like some of the other testers mentioned, the test seems to be a bit "apples to oranges", and ignores the fact that if you don't like Unity, or even Ubuntu for that matter, you can just use something else. I really understand why some people wouldn't like Unity. Heck, I was skeptical too, having really enjoyed the old default Ubuntu interface. Do I really care that the Unity bar can't be moved around? No. There are some minor glitchy annoyances with the way Unity opens and closes, but on the whole it's been a positive experience for me. I'd say try it and make your own conclusions.
How in the world you call this a benchmark? this guy is not even installing the distros, not to say he is comparing two diff distros.
Doesn't Unity seem to be made for computers with small screens and a lot of memory? Which doesn't exactly market it to a majority of computer owners, right?
I tried Unity a while back with 11.04, originally thought it had promise, but was really really rough, but looked like a huge improvement over Gnome 2. Now, back then, the Gnome shell prototypes looked pretty bad so I could sort of see why they wanted to split.
Now that Gnome 3 is out, well its IMO pretty awesome, this is the first fully usable Linux desktop where I think I can completely ditch OSX. Gnome 3 and Unity have a lot of similar features, but the thing is that Gnome3 actually works, AND it is thoroughly thought out.
Sure, Gnome 3 is certainly missing some important bits, like theme / ui control panel and other system control panels.
I'm sure its a huge effort on Canonical's part to develop Unity, but with it so similar to Gnome 3, I think their efforts would make a lot more sense adding the missing bits to Gnome 3, and possibly having their own changes.
In any case, what Linux desperately needs is a unified way to deploy applications. Not sure how exactly Gnome 3 and Unity know what applications to display, i.e what apps to display in their respective application views, but I suspect they are not compatible.
I'd like to be able to develop an app, and have it just plain work with any LInux desktop, like I develop and OSX app, and it just works with any OSX (well ok, just Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard) .