I'm with whatever our devs choose - they're the ones who have to do the work :)
Regards, Phill. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > Aloha oukou, > > I agree with what Julian said about LightDM, on all mentioned > (dis)advantages. But the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages, as > Ubuntu and Xubuntu even have way more devs hanging around then Lubuntu. > Every error or bug we encounter we can put on launchpad and hopefully will > get sorted by one of the others. When we've got time to spare, we could > solve it ourselves of course and send our patch as solution. > > So to recap, I'm pro on the switch. > > With metta, > > Chris Druif > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 03:33, Ian Gilfillan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Julien, just to clarify, LightDM uses 3.2Mb and LXDM 2.3 and not the other >> way around? This seems a trivial difference. >> >> You've mentioned before that support is important for a DM as it needs to >> be tested across many different configurations. LightDM seems far more >> active than LXDM, and in spite of being newer you say it's already more >> complete. >> >> I'd say go for the change - if there is a showstopper, or one gets >> introduced later, it should be relatively easy to revert. Also, if >> maintenance is being shared with Ubuntu (as opposed to being done by them), >> it should be possible to stop any issues being introduced that will >> negatively affect Lubuntu. >> >> The main risk seems to be one of bloat as LightDM gets more heavily >> developed, but LightDM was launched with the purpose of supporting LXDE >> (although not exclusively, like LXDM), so I'd feel confident about >> switching. >> >> -- >> Ian Gilfillan >> www.greenman.co.za >> >> >> >> >> On 09/06/2011 00:26, Yorvyk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:39:42 +0200 >>> Julien Lavergne<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm a bit late for that, but it still time to discuss such topic. >>>> >>>> LightDM [1] will be the next display manager for Ubuntu, and probably >>>> Xubuntu (maybe Kubuntu also !). It will replace GDM which have a tight >>>> dependency on GNOME. >>>> >>>> LightDM has the advantage to split the greeter (the UI part) and the >>>> core (which do all the black magic for users, consolkit etc ...). You >>>> can build a greeter which use GTK only, Qt, Webkit etc ... It's also >>>> heavily developed this cycle. >>>> >>>> Last cycle I tested LightDM, but found that it was not ready. Also, LXDM >>>> is now in a good shape. I tested it briefly on Oneiric, and it seems in >>>> better shape now, and with RAM usage similar to LXDM (3.2 vs 2.3 Mb) >>>> >>>> To summarize : >>>> >>>> Advantages: >>>> * More complete than LXDM >>>> * Maintenance shared with Ubuntu and Xubuntu >>>> * Heavily developed >>>> >>>> Disadvantages : >>>> * New and less tested in Lubuntu than LXDM >>>> * Dependant to Ubuntu team for changes : we are not free to modify the >>>> DM, and it's possible that Ubuntu team introduce a change which >>>> indirectly impact others flavors (remember Ubiquity changes for disk >>>> requierement last cycle) >>>> >>>> IMO, if items I mentioned at the UDS are managed by LightDM [2], we can >>>> try to switch for this cycle. If later in the cycle we discover that >>>> there are problems, we can still switch again to LXDM. >>>> >>>> What do you think ? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Julien Lavergne >>>> >>>> [1] : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LightDM >>>> [2] : https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-o-lightdm >>>> >>>> >>>> I've been running Ubuntu Oneiric with lightdm for a while and it >>> appears to behave it's self OK. >>> Having had a bit of a read about it I don't see an advantage in either, >>> from a user's point of view, and I'm a bit lost with the technical >>> (dis)advantages. >>> A few thoughts. With the change to GTK3 and the potential problems to be >>> resolved with that, are we adding another headache for the few competent >>> devs we have. >>> Or would having Lightdm give us one less problem, as others in the Ubuntu >>> community would be dealing with it and we wouldn't have to worry about lxdm >>> either. >>> Would sticking with what we know be better as lxdm doesn't have any real >>> problems and performs the function for which it is intended. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
