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

Reply via email to