Again, copying to the list what I do not think was meant to be a private reply.
And again, top-posted. :¬( - LP 2009/7/23 Sylkis <[email protected]>: > I'd love to see lubuntu with xbmc or out-of-the-box app package (like just > pre-installed rhythmbox and gxine) as a powerful work'n'media (for home > office and cheapest HDTV) station that runs with speed of light on platforms > like ION or weaker (like just old computers). > Personally I live in Poland and as a representative of middle-class I have a > good PC (c2d, etc) but even xubuntu was slower that windows xp on my > machine. that is why i look foward up to test lubuntu, temporaily using just > basic ubuntu installation + lxde (unfortunatelly with a lot of gnome > garbage)... > > > 2009/7/23 Liam Proven <[email protected]> >> >> So, it's a couple of weeks on and no answers are appearing. >> >> I am sure I'm not alone in wanting some answers here, chaps. >> >> To refresh folks' memories, Jon York asked with admirable concision: >> >> 1- what will Lubuntu offer that any other version of *buntu does not >> offer? >> 2- what kind of performance increase shall we see with Lubuntu? >> 3- what is our geographic and demographic target? >> 4- is Lxde ready for its own *Buntu variant? >> 5- how will Lubuntu compared to Xubuntu in terms of GB install, Ram >> usage, performance and functionality? >> 6- what is the projected usage curve for this project? >> >> In a bit greater length, I said: >> >> 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: [email protected] • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: [email protected] Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: [email protected] • ICQ: 73187508 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
