Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] pcmanfm bug

2011-06-25 Thread Jorge Andrés Alvarez Oré
I confirm this bug in Lubuntu 10.10 (I don´t remember verion)
2011/6/17 Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset

 I'm confirming this bug on Lubuntu 10.04 with pcmanfn 0.9.7


 Mailing list:
 Post to :
 Unsubscribe :
 More help   :

Mailing list:
Post to :
Unsubscribe :
More help   :

[Lubuntu-desktop] Fwd: LXDM or Lightdm ?

2011-06-13 Thread Jorge Andrés Alvarez Oré
-- Mensaje reenviado --
De: Jorge Andrés Alvarez Oré
Fecha: 13 de junio de 2011 22:41
Asunto: Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] LXDM or Lightdm ?
Para: Julien Lavergne

(Sorry for my English)
My littler opinion:
Use lxdm for this cycle (We have used for long time and seen to be fine,
also study the lightDM performance and let less work for developers for this
Use lightDM for the next cycle (Developers will have more time for develop
and study lightDM)

2011/6/9 Julien Lavergne

 Le Wednesday 08 June 2011 à 23:26 +0100, Yorvyk a écrit :
  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.

 In the past, we discovered some bugs in LXDM which was quite painful to
 investigate and fix. With a DM used by more people, and more developed,
 we decrease this kind of risk.

 Julien Lavergne

 Mailing list:
 Post to :
 Unsubscribe :
 More help   :

Mailing list:
Post to :
Unsubscribe :
More help   :

Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] Any major must fix before Beta issues left in Lubuntu?

2011-03-30 Thread Jorge Andrés Alvarez Oré
+1 alternate CD
It´s suppose that the minimal memory for use Lubuntu is 192MB, but with
256MB to install it, it´s impossible to use it with a very old computer.

My suggestion it´s to share a text install (alternate CD) by default. Anyway
now Lubuntu isn't for beginners Linux user, so with a text install no body
will be complicated. (My experience: the first Linux distro that i install
[Ubuntu 7.04], i installed with the alternate CD, with my 256MB of ram
memory [and Pentium 4 celeron] was impossible to install with GUI. Even if
was my first install i could do it without a problem. The installations it´s
Sorry for my English.

2011/3/30 PCMan

 Text based installer + 1.
 The alternate CD with console-based UI is good enough IMO if it can
 have l10n user interface.
 Windows installer has long been text-based since windows 3.1 and it's
 still text-based in windows xp. Nobody complains of this so why should
 we insist that there should be a graphical one?
 Yes, if you boot from Windows xp installer cd on a machine without OS,
 you'll enter text-based installer. The GUI part is only available
 after the basic system is set up.

 Actually, we can do the same.
 The text-based installer (part I) only installs base system and core
 components and then reboot and automatically login X11 with a super
 user. After boot, a GUI-based installer (part II) is launched and
 continues the remaining parts. This can make things much easier.

 The only problem with this approach is, we cannot have a good
 GUI-based UI for partitioning. Windows XP handle this in text-mode,
 too. However, I see no real problem here. The rationale is quite

 Users who doesn't know how to use text-based UI are also the ones that
 will almost always choose automatic partitioning. Others who like to
 use customized and manual partitioning are definitely advanced
 power users who don't need a GUI installer.
 So don't put 80% of development resources to do what only 20% people need.

 Please, if someone know how to work with the text-based debian
 installer, consider this approach. Let's set up a base system with the
 text-based one, and continue the remainng parts in a GUI installer
 after rebooting into X11. This is also what Windows does.


 On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset wrote:
   Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to reduce the memory
   of the installer for 11.04.
  The other question this poses is, is it really necessary to have a
  graphical installer as the default for Lubuntu?
  Some time ago, there was a question on the mailing list What do you
  from Lubuntu and i think that a very important point is it will go
  Ubuntu can't or something like that.
  A graphical installer is something that we do only one time (in theory)
  if it's a little ugly (text) IMHO i don't see the problem.
  Mailing list:
  Post to :
  Unsubscribe :
  More help   :

 Mailing list:
 Post to :
 Unsubscribe :
 More help   :

Mailing list:
Post to :
Unsubscribe :
More help   :

Re: [Lubuntu-desktop] Idea/Suggestion to say goodbye to xcreensaver

2011-02-24 Thread Jorge Andrés Alvarez Oré
The first time that i installed Lubuntu I've surprised when see that the
default screensaver consume 60-70% of my processor. So i deactivated it. For
me turn off the monitor in x minutes is enough. Lubuntu is not only for slow
machine, it's a energy saving OS too. In the home page say it:
lubuntu is a faster, more lightweight and *energy saving* variant of Ubuntu
using LXDE.

So, in my opinion xscreensaver should be removed and gnome-power-preferences
should be in the start menu (or whatever you call :))

2011/2/24 Tim Bernhard

 Haven't screen-savers been around forever?  Should most hardware be able to
 handle them?  Does Lubuntu need to be stripped down further?

 I sort of think that many users expect a screen-saver built into their OS.
 I know my mother-in-law loves them for some reason. :)  Personally, I have
 no use for screen-savers, especially since I'm concerned with maximizing
 battery life.  But Lubuntu needs to satisfy all users.

 Would shipping Lubuntu with xscreensaver disabled by default be a better

 Also, I hate screen locks on my machines.  I would NOT want my screen to
 lock every time it went blank.  Having it as an option would be nice, but
 not as default.


 On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Yorvyk yorvik.ubu...@googlemail.comwrote:

 On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:23:36 -0300
 Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset wrote:

  Lubuntu team:
  Since Lubuntu is targeted for low-spec computers, xcreensaver is not a
  choice to use since it causes problems such as:
  - In my three (old) machines I must kill the xcreensaver daemon in order
  be able to install the system.
  - The idea is to make a good-looking effect but with older video cards
  screensaver hangs or it is terribly slow.
  In fact in those three machines, once Lubuntu is installed I just remove
  xcreensaver and let the power-manager doing the trick of shutting-off my
  screen. It saves me from another app-running and the effect wanted is
  (and even better since it shutts the screen off, it doesn't blank it...
  it's *more energy efficiency for Lubuntu*)
  Speaking about this to Julien he pointed me to a problem I haven't seen:
  lock the screen.
  So, Googling a little i've found xtrlock, something very lightweigth to
  that locks the screen until you type your user pass: everything is
  and your mouse pointer becomes a blue lock (but since the screen will be
  off, you won't tell ;)
  The way to implement this would be that as soon as the power-manager
  off the screen it launches the xtrlock... but this would take Lubuntu
  to perform the task of coding it into the gnome-power-manager.
  I stop here, waiting for reactions and good-wellcoming :)
 I think I've commented before about screen-savers.  I have never seen a
 justifiable reason for there existence apart from locking the machine if
 required..  They serve no other purpose, other than using energy,  like you,
 I either disable or remove them from my machines.  Your idea for locking the
 machine for those that require this function but, it's a bit late in the
 cycle for anything new to be implemented as feature freeze occurs at the end
 of the month.  I would suggest putting it on launchpad as a feature request.

 Steve Cook (Yorvyk)

 Mailing list:
 Post to :
 Unsubscribe :
 More help   :

 Mailing list:
 Post to :
 Unsubscribe :
 More help   :

Mailing list:
Post to :
Unsubscribe :
More help   :