lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Nio Wiklund <nio.wiklund@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2013-06-04 22:39, Erick Brunzell wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 02:35 PM, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 01:23 AM, Erick Brunzell wrote:
>>
>>> #2: I hope wireless support improves in the netboot images to a point
>>> that we can drop the alternate images altogether.
>> Fine only where Internet bandwidth is plentiful and cheap.  If you have
>> multiple users in a place where Internet connectivity is slow or
>> expensive or both, netboot doesn't scale.  You then force such folks to
>> learn enough to set up a local repository, I think.  That isn't all that
>> simple to do.
>>
>> With an alternate installer, as at present, they download (or have
>> mailed or hand-carried to them) an ISO image, and can then install it on
>> many PCs with no further Internet bandwidth usage.
>>
>>> #3: Since it's impossible to ever reach a true consensus regarding
>>> default apps it would be cool if the live CD offered a minimal install
>>> so each user could then install the browser and other apps desired post-
>>> installation. But I see that as a long term wish-list item, NOT
>>> something we should consider until the alternate images are retired.
>> Users who care enough to do that, care enough to remove the "unwanted"
>> default apps anyway, so is this really a significant gain?  You are only
>> saving them a few minutes during the install, and a few more not needing
>> to uninstall the apps they dislike.  That's a few minutes per year
>> saved, even if they do a fresh install annually.
>>
>> Jonathan
> Again I largely agree with everything you're saying here ;^)
> 
> I would however point out that I can install Lubuntu using the i386 live
> CD on an old PII 333 MHz w/256 mb of RAM if I select install from the
> boot menu .......... but it will not run the live DE and therefore not
> install from the live DE.
> 
> But the same hardware does run Puppy much better & faster, now don't get
> mad, but I wonder if we're being totally honest about Lubuntu's support
> of "older" hardware??? How old???
> 
> Of course we now have a work-around for some non-pae Pentium M's, but
> work-arounds grow tiring to those not familiar with the OS anyway.
> That's not to say they're a waste of time. It just becomes a matter of
> what we truly want to be going forward.
> 
> Are we going to focus on being a Puppy or Damn Small clone? Or are we
> going to focus on the beauty of Lubuntu as an OS? If we split that focus
> between the two do we have the resources to pull that off?
> 
> I read the following about Lubuntu plans for Saucy:
> 
> Some interesting changes are expected to happen in Lubuntu too, the LXDE
> Ubuntu flavor. While Ubuntu might switch from Firefox to Chromium,
> *Lubuntu considers the opposite: it might ship with Firefox by default
> instead of Chromium* as the default web browser because Chromium uses
> too much memory for Lubuntu, which is supposed to be a lightweight Linux
> distribution.
> 
> *Other possible changes in Lubuntu 13.10 Saucy Salamander include:*
> 
>   * remove lxkeymap in favor of the keyboard applet of lxpanel;
>   * Lubuntu Software Center might be replaced with something else;
>   * Xscreensaver might be removed and replaced with the LightDM locking
>     system;
>   * Ubuntu One might be integrated by default;
>   * better file manager that includes support for ssh/ftp;
>   * FreeCiv or another game might be added by default;
>   * artwork changes.
> 
> Those changes, or any combination of those changes, may be a great thing
> or less :^)
> 
> I'd be very disappointed if we dropped PCManFM in favor of some other
> file manager - I detest Thunar - but this brings me back to offering
> options during installation. I know it would take weeks, or even months
> of development to pull that off - but I think it would be "cool".
> 
> Is it "cool" enough to draw support from enough Ubuntu/Canonical devs to
> pull it off? I dunno :^)
> 
> Lance
> 

Hi everybody,

mörgæs has described old hardware, where Lubuntu is a good choice: which
CPUs, how much memory, which applications etc. See the opening post in
the following thread at the Ubuntu Forums: "Old hardware"

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2130640

I agree with most of that description, and I think we all agree that
Lubuntu also works well with newer hardware. There is a low limit, where
it is possible to run the OS, but not use the computer to browse the
internet in a convenient way.

First I felt it was a good idea to make a Lubuntu Core iso, but after
thinking about this issue, I would say rather few people will really
benefit from a lighter version, not so much because of Lubuntu, but
because of the design of the web pages and the necessary complexity and
size of the web browsers to manage those web pages.

And those few people, or should I say enthusiasts, can easily make
Lubuntu Core or other ultra-light flavours from the mini.iso. They, or
should I say many of us, would even prefer to make our own flavour from
the mini.iso or hop to another distro for that purpose ;-)

Best regards
Nio