I use Unity 2D on one of my desktop machines and I agree with you totally
that the lightweight version should be continued in some form as a fork. The
standard Unity takes up more resources and the effects may require non-free
graphical drivers to work correctly. I've been been pushing for a version of
Trisquel offering Unity 2D for a while, but it has been ignored. Here is what
I see so far:
1. Ubuntu 12.04 and in return Unity 2D are supported for 5 years so Canonical
is commited to fix security or performance issues for the 2D version for a
while. If the DE is forked, then the fork will have to be aware of any
updates by Canonical.
2. If Unity 2D is needed to be used on newer releases of Ubuntu code even
though Canonical doesn't support it, the Trisquel or some other team will
have to make necessary changes to ensure the DE can work properly with the
newer base.
3. The nice thing about Unity 2D being based on 12.04 is that the code itself
doesn't include the Amazon spyware in the 12.10 releases and above. You would
be starting off with code base that doesn't disrespect your privacy.
4. If Unity 2D is forked completely, then the name would have to be changed
like with the Gnome 2 fork being called MATE. That way, the Canonical artwork
and any potentially trademarked material can be ripped out and be
independent. Like with the MATE reference earlier, I believe the MATE team is
integrating features not in the old Gnome 2 and potentially offering GTK 3
support.
I love your enthusiasm and many people do share your viewpoint. Many people
(including Matt on the Linux Action Show) saw the omission of Unity 2D in
newer releases as a bad thing and if a project can maintain a fork of Unity
2D, then I fully support them.
