I am glad to see that I am not alone with these concerns for the project. I do not wish to be the stick in the wheel, nor the stormy little raincloud. Personally, computing minimalism is something I feel strongly about, and really wish this trend to take wind. One thing that has been bugging me since I took part of this, is the seemingly (to me anyways) lack of cohesiveness, or coordination of this project. It has been two weeks, and still I see no advancement. Maybe I am too far removed, but if not, I have the time everyday of the week to read and coordinate emails. If possible, and if wished, I could conceivably arrange those contributors into smaller, cohesive groups which will allow us to be an official release for 9.10.
I do not mean to step over any toes, or insult anyone by this. I am simply stating that I have the time, and the willingness to be a project coordinator. If there is one such coordinator, (mario?) I offer my help to him or her Jon York > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:21:32 +0100 > From: lpro...@gmail.com > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] Lubuntu Project Q's > > 2009/7/7 jon york <jr_...@hotmail.com>: > > Alright, not that I want to start any E-fights, but I do believe these are > > serious questions that need to be answered > > > > in any project, there needs to be a driving reason behind it other then > > "because", also, there needs to be a reason for people to try it, and > > switch, or else this project will eventually fail. > > I concur. > > I am somewhat dismayed by what I've read so far. This seems to me to > be just another gratuitous "let's do a version of Ubuntu with our > favourite desktop environment on it" effort to me, frankly. > > 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. >  They are not easy to install. >  Once installed, they are not easy to keep updated. >  It's also not trivial to add new applications, remove existing > ones and so on. >  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: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com > Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 > AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven > MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508 > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > Post to : email@example.com > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : firstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp