Arif Driessen said : > > main point is that *if* you feel you can handle purdyne based on > Debian - you can definitely handle puredyne based on ubuntu. > > > > Well I happen to be sceptical of a move to ubuntu. As soon as you move to > ubuntu, I no longer have a need for pure:dyne as I myself could easially > install my particular flavour of ubuntu (as i no doubt will not be entirely > satisfied with your choices) and plonk my media apps and realtime patch on > top. >
I don't quite understand this. Ubuntu is a snapshot of Debian sid plus patches/improvements meaning that if you can do this with Ubuntu you can do it just as well with Debian. The thing is not that experienced users can do this sort of thing themselves - we all know that :) - but we put this together for people that can't do it themselves, or don't want to or simply don't have the time. > Besides, I thoght p:d was all about lightweight-ness, something which ubuntu > is > not about. if there are actually some solid reasons for why you would want to > move to ubuntu (which I'm sure there'll only be a few) then why not add them > to > your debian distro rather than the other way around (starting with ubuntu and > cutting your way around thick and fog) Lightweirght-ness is not something that is impossible to achieve with Ubuntu. In fact, if you start from a minimal install and install only the stuffs needed you end up with a snappy minimal system, just like you had before. As said above: a lot of the packages *are* the same as in Debian, yes, with slighly different defaults, and definitely more recent versions, but.... its Debian-based and is thus just as customisable as its parent distro. > Here would constitute a great reason for an update to p:d... > > * Remove XFCE, move to Lxde > * Get firefox 3.5 in there (it is way faster) > * Remove all gnome dependencies including... > * Remove Gnome Desktop Manager, replace with SLiM > * Add the ubuntu installer app, that will easially handle turning your live > distro into a non-live HD based 'normal' OS The point you're raising is something that in fact we have thought very carefully about. Backporting packages is not a big deal in itself, but in the long run requires a *massive* amount of maintainance work. Just think about it: a team of.. say 6-7 maybe 8 or 9 people having to maintain all the packages they create, plus on top follow the release cycle of packages they have (but don't really want) to maintain (I'm thinking of stuff like firefox, or XFCE or whatnot). Not sure you know what that means, but its a massive amount of work, if done properly. We just don't have the resources to do that at this point and it seems really like a bad idea to duplicate all that work when its already being done by Ubuntu maintainers. I think the point should be raised again that one of the main advantages of Ubuntu is that its *because* its a Desktop-oriented distro (which is what most of people who do music/art/media stuffs use it as ;) its suited much better to our needs than Debian. Debian will most probably more and more become a distro for servers and applications like that, where stability is more important than the length of new-features list. Finally, I think it needs to be said that, yes, we should think about using LXDE + pcmanfm (which I think is great btw) and try to keep it simple and lightweight on the Desktop end, but the prejeduice you're raising about "Ubuntu-based" == "bloated" is IMHO non-sense. If you still like, you could help us keeping puredyne simple and lightweight by, for instance, making a ticket with the recommendations you make towards improving memory/cpu footprint, startup time or create a Debian package for SLiM (which looks cool btw). Greetings, -- karsten gebbert -- krgn.goto10.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- [email protected] irc.goto10.org #puredyne
