lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[John Thng <johnthng83@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.


If there's lightweight that provides the original functionality that the
user will need, we will go for it. But some applications have important
features that is not replaceable ...


> 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.


But sometimes modern applications are designed to be more and more bloated.
We need a standalone office presentation program. A better open source
browser to be as lightweight as Opera for browsing. A better flash
alternative, as flash took lots of cpu and memory.

OS is not a great obstacle, but applications is. 15 years ago, my computer
has windows 95 on 8 mb ram. Antivirus last time is just diskettes, and ms
office too. And yes windows xp can run on low ram, but coupled with
antivirus this and that, it will need much more.


> 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.


It will be good if we put priority what is the goal. But to fulfill these
functions for non-geek is another problem.


> 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

The point is Open Source. GNOME Office lack a presentation program.


> 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 have tried both distro. Arch is good and fast. It's simple base with not
much bloats. Sorry, I meant Zenwalk. Zenwalk I have tried too.

I found that I can't run browser with flash well enough on even 128 ram.


> 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.
>
Sometimes, it is not good to use the same sorts of apps as Puppy or DSL.
There are a lot of restrictions to what the applications can do.

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.


Yes, it's a modern computer, but 2nd hand computer should have the standard
of min specs. If the needed applications are not bloated, we can run on them
well. And not everyone in the developing world live on before year 2000
hardware. Some have newer, like OLPC, and Classmate PC. And they have specs
up to 1 GB RAM.

We don't forget how poor the majoirty of people but do unsderstand the min
specs for running well in the high tech IT environment will certainly hit
higher than 64 MB ram. We want to bridge those people in developing
countries to the world, and not reducing to them to the tools where seldom
or hardly people in the world might use it anyway.

That is easy to say if you can afford a higher spec. But billions of
> people cannot.
>
Billions of people cannot. Even in developing countries, people don't have
money for it. And govt paid for them.

We should look at the different perpective rather than trying to revive
limited before year 2000 computers and neglect the current computers donated
or sold after year 2000.



> 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.

It's the fault of websites, but it's the truth too they need that to learn
too.
It's nearly impossible to ask people to have flash-less browsers nowadays.
People learn tutorials from videos too. And videos on web? Flash.


>
> 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.

Is there a study on developing countries computer on how many people are
still using 100 or 200 MEGA-Hertz PC as compared to better specs? We can't
narrow out too much and filter off too much usability to suit it. 100 or 200
MHz PC is about 15 years ago. There's some limitation obviously.

Btw, livecd hardly run on those computers 15 years ago, as they don't have
bootable cd-rom. You have to depend on floppy disk or so.


> > 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!
>
Ya, tell me if you have a way to make the usable features in that space,
especially 256m. I can say don't put too much stain on hard disk. 15 years
ago, there's already 1.5 GB HDD. But it's good not to waste much space,
that's why dependencies factor comes in.
 Unless you are saying those newer flash type that so-called expensive
netbooks have.


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

Yes, that's why it's good to have a rather perfect system. But not too bare
min to sacrifice too much, or too bloated to make it slow. If you go to the
extreme, there's lots of things that makes it not so usable and desire.
That's why I need to warn all about it. It will comes with a high price tag
with negative user experience certainly.

Why much normal people might not be using DSL since it's so lightweight?
Just think about it. And 256m installation space will be roughly be the size
of DSL too since it will unpack the applications in the cd. In which if this
is the goal, we are going for 50 mb cd space instead, which is impossible if
we want usability.

And also it's a need to cater from donated computers and new computers from
year 2000 and above too. Don't be too restrictive on before year 2000
computers. I believe there are majority of people using donated computers or
new sponsored computers from 1998 to 2008. Do we need to make a distro for
year 2000 and below computers, and make computers from above 2000 to 2008
suffer as result of the lack of good usability programs. It's a compromise
question. If we make a distro for year 2000 and below, computers from 2000
to 2008 might not benefit as much from it.

It's hard to make everyone happy, but it's good that it suited most and make
most happy.

Regards
John Thng