lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/7/23 John Thng <johnthng83@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by "usability"? Do you feel that a distro with a
>> lightweight desktop such as IceWM would be less usable?
>
> That means much of the default applications are there, there's no need for
> users to know further or to download and install further.

Who is proposing removing applications? I'm not and I don't think
anyone else is, are they?

What I am urging is the choice of /lightweight/ apps that will run
well on low-end hardware.

> We also do not want Lubuntu project to become a project for geeks and the
> technical experience only.

The whole reason for the existence of Ubuntu is to de-mystify Linux
and make it accessible to ordinary people. That is the reason for
Ubuntu's slogan, "Linux for human beings".

This being so, surely is applies to the many spinoffs and derivatives of Ubuntu.

So, again, nobody is suggesting that Lubuntu be made more complex,
more difficult, less accessible to beginners and non-technical people.

What I am suggesting is that since Ubuntu hits its target quite well,
that Lubuntu should aim for a different target. I am suggesting that
since LXDE is a lightweight desktop, then it would make sense, I
think, to make an Ubuntu variant based around Lubuntu a lightweight
edition of Ubuntu for low-end hardware.

Ubuntu runs fine on a 192MB PC with 20GB of disk. I have personally
installed it on such a machine in the last month or so. I tested the
machine extensively before giving it away on my local Freecycle list.

Xubuntu does not aim for much lower-spec hardware than Ubuntu itself.

So aiming for the same baseline spec as Ubuntu or Xubuntu is
pointless. That niche is filled. It seems to me, then, that the
obvious conclusion is to aim at a lighter niche.

> Who should use Lubuntu? Who benefit from Lubuntu?
> And yes, we would create Lubuntu for geeks only, but will this benefit all?
> Or only geeks only?

I am not suggesting this, nor is anyone else.

> Lightweight Distro yes, but if lightweight distro sacrifice lots of the
> requirements of users who use it and users don't like the technical aspects
> of it, it does not serve the purpose of creating super lightweight distro.

Who is suggesting such sacrifices? I have not seen it.

It seems to me that the basics of Ubuntu are:
 - simple installation
 - an easy-to-use desktop
 - the basic core apps: web, email, chat, office productivity,
graphics, media & a few games.
 - simple updates to keep the system current

That seems to me to also be a goal for Lubuntu. This seems so obvious
I did not think it needed spelling out, but apparently, it does.

What I am proposing is not a stripped-down Ubuntu with LXDE and no
applications.

It's a lighter Ubuntu with the smallest, quickest, lightest-weight
apps that fulfil these functions.

>> Personally, I see no point in using tools like OpenOffice, good as
>> they may be, if they rule out or eliminate a significant proportion of
>> would-be users whose machines are too low-spec to run OO.o.
>
> I wonder how much significant proportion of the would-be users as compared
> to the much more significant proportion of would-be users who will be
> sacrificing because of the lack OO.o. It'll be good if there's good report
> on the proportion.

I do not know many people who love OO.o that much! Its chief virtue is
that it looks and works very much like MS Office 97 through 2003.
(Office 2007 and later are, of course, totally different.)

Other programs also offer a usable degree of file-compatibility with
MS Office documents. Here is an example:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/better-office-alternative-softmaker-office-bests-openofficeorg-445

Also see:
http://ostatic.com/blog/tiny-softmakers-office-suite-beats-openoffice-in-reviews-what-gives
&
http://linux.com/archive/feature/153229

Alas SoftMaker Office is not Free.

There are other pretty usable Linux office tools out there, though.
Notably, GNOME Office:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeOffice

>> What's the difference here? What do you see as being the trade-offs?
>
> The difference is almost not user-friendly distro, that might not be what
> the non-technical user will want it. We should look at the thoughts of
> non-technical user rather than the thoughts of experienced users.
>>
>> I am not aware of any. That is my point. Are you? Please tell me what they
>> are!
>
> Like Puppy distro, Damn Small Linux,

Both LiveCD. As I pointed out in an earlier message, many older
machines cannot boot from CD; I built 2 such earlier this year.
Secondly, neither of these can be installed easily onto a hard disk,
and once installed, cannot be easily updated.

> Arch, Zen and others ...

I confess I am not familiar with either. Zen Linux appears to be dead,
last updated in 2005; its homepage is gone. Do you perhaps mean
Zenwalk?

I have heard of both Arch & Zenwalk but not tried either, I must
admit. My impression is that both were aimed at 686-level machines -
Pentium Pro/II/III and higher - and were something of "geeks' distros"
for those who like to "get under the hood" and twiddle settings.
Certainly that's my impression of Arch.

I thought we were debating an Ubuntu variant here?

But yes, in summary, what I am proposing is a variant of Ubuntu that
uses the same sorts of apps as Puppy or DSL, that runs on the same
sort of hardware, but is based on Ubuntu, designed to be installed
onto hard disk, and can be updated indefinitely from then on. I'm not
aware of anything quite like that in existence.

> If you don't like puppy distro, the apps are one of lightness and usable as
> low as it goes. It obvious does not suit the mass, but fortunately there are
> many forks around it.

Are there any that fix the issue of running as root? This is a very
major drawback. I quite like Puppy as a desktop and use it in testing
PCs, but I would not give a Puppy system to any novice user. Running
as root is just too dangerous.

>>  It is not a helpful bridge if only those with powerful computers may
>> cross it
>
>  But not too powerful computers can run it as well. I forgot to mention even
> the obsoleted Eee 701 runs OO.o as well.

That is a modern, gigahertz-class computer, costing £200 or more! This
is more than many people in the developing world earn in a *year*.
That is *exactly* the point I was trying to make when I said that it
is very easy for people in the developed world to forget how poor the
majority of people in the world really are.

The Eee is a high-end modern computer compared to anything made before
the year 2000.

> I'm not saying we should kill off the low-spec range, but in order for
> usability, higher spec might be required.

That is easy to say if you can afford a higher spec. But billions of
people cannot.

> Nowadays, open source browser with flash, could easily hit the low spec hard

Nobody is promising miracles. If certain websites cannot be viewed on
the lowest-end computers, well, that is unfortunate, but it is the
fault of the websites, not of the software.

> Just last question, will Lubuntu going to benefit the mass, or only the
> benefit the few.

The millions of people who can afford computers costing hundreds of
pounds sterling/US dollars are already well-served.

It is the billions who cannot afford such computers - the people who
earn $3 a week - who are not helped by Ubuntu.

I see no point in making another toy for the rich. They already have
many toys. There are a hundred graphical desktop distros out there to
play with if you have a gigahertz-class PC.

Let's make one for people with a 100 or 200 MEGA-Hertz PC instead.
They have very little to choose from, which is why people like David
are still using Windows 98.

> And what does the mass want if Lubuntu is going to benefit the mass?

What they want, mostly, is Windows. That is bug #1 in the Ubuntu database.


> And last thing, there's no way you can use Lubuntu out of the box, for
> 64/256m.

I *know!* That is the point I am trying to make!

> And I did mention we should create both the pure core and the normal one for
> the mass.

Complex options, such as choosing what to install, are exactly what
the Ubuntu project was created to avoid. This is not the answer.

> There are people who do meta-packages or so. But if I'm not wrong, there
> ain't much human resources for this and that atm ya?

Well, perhaps that is something we can fix.

-- 
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