lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[C David Rigby <c.david.rigby@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 15:07 +0100, Ed Hewitt wrote:
> I believe its a bad idea having different versions of Lubuntu, having
> different meta packages of Lubuntu is not what lubutnu needs. Its all
> about lightweight distro. The Ubuntu guidelines requires the distro to
> have one build, lubuntu-desktop.

That's a good point that I had not considered when I suggested that the
installer might offer multiple meta-packages. Thanks for pointing it
out.

Also: 

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:03 +0200, Mario Behling wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Internet bandwidth in countries like Afghanistan or in African
> countries is often very low. So, we need to consider this. Some people
> say "you can just download and install applications on top of a
> minimum install", in regions with limited bandwidth this is not an
> option.
> 
> In regards to mobile devices and architectures like ARM and Mips, we
> also have to think that new netbooks and other devices are coming out.
> They often have low resolutions. I recently saw a netbook with 800x420
> screen resolution in China.

Full disclosure: despite my love of Ubuntu, I do not use it everywhere.
If I have a specialized use for a piece of low-resource hardware, I
pick the distro that best fits the requirements. I don't mind working a
bit harder to squeeze out more efficiency. This is not the approach
appropriate for desktop end-users, though. They should not have to
bother, nor need the help of a power user to get set up.

> So, I think talking about the goal of the distribution is the first
> thing to consider and the second step is to talk about single
> applications. If an applications fulfills goals well, but at a later
> point another application fulfills our goals better, we can switch.
> 
> The question now: What is the goal of lubuntu for you? Do you suggest
> something else?


I was thinking about all of this. In a prior project I worked on for a
lightweight GNU/Linux distro, distributing CDs in Africa where there
was little or no network access was one of our goals. Some of the group
actually went to Africa (I forget exactly where) with a van full of
older, donated gear and set up an entire school lab this way.

So, I propose that the goal should be a complete Ubuntu with the
critical apps (Firefox, Open Office) that uses LXDE rather than
GNOME/KDE/Xubuntu. This would better suit the needs of the proposed
users. In other words, in the trade off between lightweight and
complete functionality, I would vote for functionality at the expense
of efficiency.

As well:

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 17:44 +0100, Ed Hewitt wrote:
> Apart from choosing the right applications for the distro, the other
> thing we need to think about is background services...I try and solve
> the problem by installing BUM and using the services manager in
> Ubuntu, but you can only turn on/off about 15-20 services.

Very good point. As long as we don't deviate from the Ubuntu guidelines,
this is one of the areas where we could optimize effectively without
sacrificing too much end-user functionality. BUM is Perl-GTK2, so
perhaps it or an application we derive from it would be something we
could include in Lubuntu? It does not appear to be part of my Ubuntu
9.04 default installation. This might be a way to provide the user some
control over the trade-off between efficiency and functionality.

Regards
C David Rigby