lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again, copying to the list what I do not think was meant to be a private reply.

And again, top-posted. :¬(

 - LP

2009/7/23 Sylkis <sylkis@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I'd love to see lubuntu with xbmc or out-of-the-box app package (like just
> pre-installed rhythmbox and gxine) as a powerful work'n'media (for home
> office and cheapest HDTV) station that runs with speed of light on platforms
> like ION or weaker (like just old computers).
> Personally I live in Poland and as a representative of middle-class I have a
> good PC (c2d, etc) but even xubuntu was slower that windows xp on my
> machine. that is why i look foward up to test lubuntu, temporaily using just
> basic ubuntu installation + lxde (unfortunatelly with a lot of gnome
> garbage)...
>
>
> 2009/7/23 Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> So, it's a couple of weeks on and no answers are appearing.
>>
>> I am sure I'm not alone in wanting some answers here, chaps.
>>
>> To refresh folks' memories, Jon York asked with admirable concision:
>>
>> 1- what will Lubuntu offer that any other version of *buntu does not
>> offer?
>> 2- what kind of performance increase shall we see with Lubuntu?
>> 3- what is our geographic and demographic target?
>> 4- is Lxde ready for its own *Buntu variant?
>> 5- how will Lubuntu compared to Xubuntu in terms of GB install, Ram
>> usage, performance and functionality?
>> 6- what is the projected usage curve for this project?
>>
>> In a bit greater length, I said:
>>
>> Firstly, there is an existing effort to create a lightweight version
>> of Ubuntu. It's called U-Lite (formerly Ubuntu Lite until Canonical
>> had Words), being developed largely solo by Shae Smittle.
>>
>> http://u-lite.org/
>>
>> So Lubuntu seems to be rather duplicating this effort.
>>
>> Secondly, If Lubuntu wants to be a lightweight distro for low-end
>> machines, then there is simply no point including large, heavyweight
>> apps such as OpenOffice.
>>
>> There is no reason that a cut-down Linux should not run happily on 15
>> to 20 year old PC hardware - and back in those days, when production
>> volumes were much lower and PCs were much more expensive, they were
>> built of higher-quality components and are quite likely to still be
>> working fine.
>>
>> 192MB of RAM and a few gig of disk is not a particularly lightweight
>> PC. That spec will run Windows XP if you're patient, and a hundred
>> other Linux distros. It will, for example, run Xubuntu quite well.
>>
>> The big gap in the Linux ecosystem is lower down than that. It is for
>> machines which were meant for Windows 98: 64-128MB RAM and 1GB of disk
>> or less.
>>
>> Yes, distros like Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux will run on this,
>> but they are dramatically constrained and both are designed to run
>> from bootable CDs, not to be installed onto a hard disk. This poses
>> various problems.
>> [1] They are not easy to install.
>> [2] Once installed, they are not easy to keep updated.
>> [3] It's also not trivial to add new applications, remove existing
>> ones and so on.
>> [4] Many very old, very low-spec PCs can't boot from CD anyway. Indeed
>> of my own half a dozen PCs still in regular use, none can boot off a
>> USB stick, and these are all from the 21st century and run modern OSs
>> just fine.
>>
>> There is a real gap in the market for a VERY lightweight Linux desktop
>> aimed at such machines. Bear in mind, if it runs on a 64MB box in
>> 500MB of disk, it will *fly* along on a more modern PC. Aiming at
>> low-end kit does not limit you to low-end kit.
>>
>> LXDE might be just the thing for it, too.
>>
>> But at the moment, it seems to me that the team behind Lubuntu:
>> [a] are rather pointedly snubbing Shae and the U-Lite project
>> [b] lack clear demarcation either from U-Lite or from any other
>> flavour of Ubuntu
>> [c] are including tools that disqualify them from their alleged goal
>> of running on moderately low-end kit which
>> [d] would appear to distinctly overlap with the objectives of Xubuntu,
>> just for starters.
>>
>> My most serious concerns could be expressed thus:
>> - firstly, pick some proper lightweight apps to go with your
>> lightweight desktop. There is no point in just offering the same apps
>> as any other Ubuntu variant.
>> - secondly, stick to one toolkit or set of libraries when doing this,
>> or you will bloat your distro out with a horrendous mix of GNOME
>> libraries and KDE libraries and LXDE libraries and so on.
>> - thirdly, make it a proper, really lightweight distro for really
>> low-end kit. There is an abundance of choice in terms of distros for
>> relatively modern kit, and with nothing to distinguish it, Lubuntu is
>> doomed to obscurity.
>>
>> Set a target - e.g. not more than 250MB of binaries on media, or 500MB
>> installed on disk  - something that allows for more functionality than
>> one of the 50MB or 100MB business-card-CD or mini-3"-CD distros - and
>> deliver a proper, installable, updateable, full distro with the power
>> of APT-GET, rather than just another LiveCD.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven@xxxxxxxxx • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@xxxxxxxxx
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven@xxxxxxxxxxx • ICQ: 73187508