Mono required by ubuntu-desktop

[Dan Kegel]

On 8/2/06, Scott James Remnant <scott at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > So let's pick an attainable goal: no net increase in memory requirements
> > from the status quo (unless the user starts some new huge app on purpose).
> >
> I'm sorry, but that's crap.  It's a stupid goal.  There are perfectly
> legitimate reasons to increase memory requirements.
>
> Standing still while everything else improves around you is equivalent
> to going backwards.  We want to be at the cutting edge of computing, not
> the dark ages.

Gee, we seem to be miscommunicating.  All I wanted to do was
to help make sure Ubuntu performed well on computers purchased at
large retailers like Fry's.  That's not unreasonable, is it?

> I would say that Ubuntu's minimum requirements should not be higher than
> a PC purchasable at start of development time from an reputable online
> dealer for a certain price (let's say $500).
>
> In other words, Ubuntu should neither not require a PC newer than 6
> months old, nor a "top of the line" one.  And more specifically, the
> increase in Ubuntu's minimum requirements should not EXCEED the increase
> in performance of mass-market computers.

That's the same sort of metric I was thinking of, so perhaps there's
hope after all.

> Depending which cost metric you use, the typical cost of keeping up to
> date is no more than $20 a month (a new computer every 2 years).  This
> is not a huge amount of money for the western world, who are the kinds
> of people who are addicted to upgrades.
>
> Obviously the non-western world can't afford this, but then they don't
> care about having the latest, shiniest, blingfulness, release.  They can
> run the older releases or other derivatives.
> And lastly your choice is to use an Ubuntu derivative that is not
> targeted at "current" hardware, but has had extra effort spent to reduce
> memory requirements at the cost of features

"Let the poor run old releases" isn't going to make Ubuntu
popular in areas that can't afford that update rate.

I think the key here is your assumption that reducing memory
requirements has to come at the cost of features.
My proposal was not aimed at cutting features.
All I wanted to do was monitor RAM usage and avoid unneccessary growth.
If you think that's silly, well, perhaps I'll take my toys and play elsewhere.
- Dan