Hi Eero,<br><br> I'm excited to hear from you and that you're interested in working with Xubuntu. You make some excellent points and I most certainly will take advantage of your expertise! :)<br><br> Give me a shout the next time you're on IRC.<br>
<br>Thanks,<br><br>Cody<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Eero Tamminen <<a href="mailto:oak@helsinkinet.fi">oak@helsinkinet.fi</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Thursday 27 March 2008, Jim Campbell wrote:<br>
> I'd first like to start off this e-mail by announcing the Xubuntu<br>
> community meeting was a *huge* success. We had roughly two dozen people<br>
> take part (including old, current, and new faces) and a number of other<br>
> individuals who sent in e-mails or left a quick IRC message to let us<br>
> know that they were unable to attend but would be following up with much<br>
> interest. After just under an hour of constructive discussion led by Jono<br>
> Bacon and several free form votes, I'm happy to present following mission<br>
> statement for Xubuntu:<br>
><br>
> "To produce an easy to use distribution, based on Ubuntu, using Xfce<br>
> as the graphical desktop, with a focus on integration, usability and<br>
> performance, with a particular focus on low memory footprint. The<br>
> integration in Xubuntu is at a configuration level, a toolkit level, and<br>
> matching the underlying technology beneath the desktop in Ubuntu. Xubuntu<br>
> will be built and developed as part of the wider Ubuntu community, based<br>
> around the ideals and values of Ubuntu."<br>
<br>
</div>Level of integration and especially usability can often be subjective<br>
matters, but sometimes it's very clear which of the alternatives is better<br>
in these respects.<br>
<br>
However, performance and memory usage are something which can be<br>
measured[1]. I think having them in the goals requires specifying what kind<br>
of test-cases and tools&measurements should be used to evaluate them.<br>
I.e. decisions related to them should be based on facts, not rubbish like<br>
"I feel gnome libs are heavy...".<br>
<br>
Maemo "Quality Awareness" document could be looked for examples:<br>
<a href="http://maemo.org/development/documentation/how-tos/4-x/quality_awareness.html" target="_blank">http://maemo.org/development/documentation/how-tos/4-x/quality_awareness.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[1] Some performance metrics:<br>
- system & desktop startup time[2]<br>
- system & desktop memory usage[2]<br>
- application startup time<br>
- application responsiveness<br>
- application memory usage<br>
- how application CPU & memory usage correlates to its data size i.e.<br>
scalability (e.g. archiver memory usage in relation to archive size)<br>
- power usage (wakeups and polling can affect laptop battery usage<br>
dramatically, but this is getting important also for servers and desktops)<br>
- performance over network (for LTSP setups)<br>
<br>
There are tools to measure and analyze all of these, some can be a bit hard<br>
to use though. Anyway, it needs to be prioritized what kind of performance<br>
Xubuntu cares about. Is power usage important? What about LTSP stuff?<br>
In what amount of memory (most) applications should work?<br>
<br>
Also, if some non-gnome app initially takes less memory, but with larger<br>
sets of data takes significantly more memory than the gnome-variant, I don't<br>
feel it's the right one for Xubuntu.<br>
<br>
[2] System part comes from Ubuntu and has unfortunately pretty large effect<br>
on these measurements.<br>
<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Xubuntu_2008-03-26" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Xubuntu_2008-03-26</a>.<br>
<br>
</div>"19:19 meborc i believe the main fight was in either including or<br>
excluding some gnome applications... this should also be somehow said in<br>
the statement!"<br>
<br>
Well, to me it seemed that the main issue of "the fight" was that<br>
the changes were not:<br>
- presented to community before hand so that they could comment on what<br>
issues the changes would/could have, what changes would be needed in<br>
documentation, support etc<br>
- reasoned (until the reasoning for them had been asked for many times)<br>
- backed up with facts about actual performance/memory usage improvements<br>
<br>
<br>
"19:30 cody-somerville IMHO, I don't think we have the expertise to have a<br>
focus on performance."<br>
<br>
I can help here. I don't run Xubuntu myself currently, but I have a lot of<br>
experience on this area (what tools to use, when and how to interpret<br>
the results), please use it.<br>
<br>
<br>
"19:36 j1mc i get the feeling that, if we have a leader, that they will<br>
likely have the final say on some technical matters, and that everyone<br>
might not agree with their perspective, but that is part of having a<br>
leader."<br>
<br>
I wouldn't go as far as to say that they have the final say, instead they<br>
should have a veto on changes that:<br>
- haven't been presented to community for commenting,<br>
- don't contain enough/valid reasoning or<br>
- aren't aligned with the Xubuntu goals or (after presentation) the majority<br>
of the community.<br>
<br>
The leader facilitates this kind of decision making and makes sure that<br>
the project goals and members are respected. If the community cannot produce<br>
a decision with his guidance, he has the final decision, but I think this is<br>
usually an indication that the matter should be postponed until there's more<br>
information or better design (or in current case, more focused vision :-)).<br>
<br>
<br>
- Eero<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
xubuntu-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com">xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>