lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[John Thng <johnthng83@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop
> Post to     : lubuntu-desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

We have discussed the problems as before.
There are mentions previously that people in third world countries are
living with limited internet bandwidth unlike people in developed countries
with large or unlimited internet bandwidth.

Thus, it'll be good if the distro bundled usable applications inside instead
of the people finding ways on how to download the applications in.

There should be a compromise point. It is possible to make the spec as low
as possible, but does it surf the purpose of usability over normal people or
the distro is purely for geeks to use.

As for my point of view, it should be light but at the same time, usability
is important, thus making it a bit different. We don't want people in low
internet bandwidth hunting for bandwidth to load usable daily applications.

There's a need for compromising. We can't restrict too much till it's a geek
distro which does not care about the usability. I know there are distros
putting lightweight apps, but does it solve the usability problem with
lightweight.

I'm not sure what the big picture is, but lubuntu should be for everyone,
young till old, developed or developing countries, and not too restrictive
to make it hard and user friendly to use too.

It's pretty sad that some applications are bloated, but do we have the
choice not to use them, but even if we do have the choice, will the
usability of the distro be affected much.

Some might believe that Lubuntu will be the solution for people living in
developing countries with no/limited bandwidth. Some believe Lubuntu should
run on old computers in developed countries.

But I would choose for usable Lubuntu that benefits more people with
no/limited bandwidth than keeping people with old computers or geeks happy.

For people with old computers or those lightweight geeks, I think other
distro might surf better for the purpose.

And last time during discussion, OpenOffice.org is chosen is because
compatibility issues and also presentation program. In addition, I do think
OpenOffice.org would surf as a need to bridge those in developing countries
to the world.

Regards
John Thng