Why does Xubuntu desktop look like GNOME?

|^ `/ () () | ( (-) | ryooichi at gmail.com
Wed May 17 12:48:21 UTC 2006

On 5/3/06, colmcd at optusnet.com.au <colmcd at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> This is in My opinion totally but I feel that something must be said:
> the typical XFCE is totally unlike Windows! I find that while the setups
> are getting better (the setup from Hoary was awful) they still do not look
> easy to use (the breezy one was substantially better).
> This from my experience has written off xfce as a possibility for
> recycling old hardware to give to the general public as it is usually quite
> unlike Windows. Also the general Menu (which seems optional) isn't so
> straight forward. It seems to depend on the magic buttons going along the
> bottom of the screen and using XFCE icons which I found difficult to
> understand.
> If you want Xubuntu for the Linux geeks that want to see XFCE implemented
> in it's whole glory and forget about the practical or users side then you
> can argue it. However the X in Xubuntu only counts for one letter. The
> Ubuntu or Humanity Counts for the other 6! So to me and my understanding
> XUBUNTU should be human and use able first and foremost, then worry about
> the aesthetics of meeting XFCE guidelines.
> I am saying this so that XUBUNTU can fulfill a purpose and not just be a
> Linux distro for Linux users to which we don't need!
> Colin McDermott
> Reboot Computer Recycling.

Well, if that's what Xubuntu is all about, then it would appear that I've
done barked up the wrong tree. I just find myself at great odds with the
idea and the attempt to make Ubuntu or Xubuntu "like Windows". Therefore
I'll simply go back to Debian and get what I'm looking for... besides, many
of the Ubuntu/Xubuntu developers' improvements do find their way in one form
or another back into improvements to Debian. I just hope that the current
Debian testing will support my hardware as effortlessly as did Xubuntu and

You see, I like not to be forced to delve into manual configuration of
everything up an installation; at the least it's anticlimatic. But if what
I'm getting at the end of the install isn't what I thought it'd be, then all
bets are off. I thought that Xubuntu's loyalty was greater towards XFCE than
Ubuntu, and while this thread has found like-minded support, it has also
found criticism proving to me that Xubuntu's main desire is primarily to
create Ubuntu's little brother that can run on old crap hardware and could
care less about the software it uses.

The description of Xubuntu on xubuntu.org says:
Xubuntu is a complete GNU/Linux based system with an Ubuntu base. It's
lighter, and more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE, since it uses the
Xfce Desktop environment, which makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
as well as thin-client networks.

Perhaps I should have read more into the fact that XFCE is scarcely
mentioned as an afterthought like, "Oh yeah by the way we use XFCE for
this." Why even bother mentioning it if no respect or loyalty is shown in
the final product? I mean it's not like some n00b cares what the underlying
deskop environment is.

By the way, you guys in the outback should really upgrade your hardware.

|^ `/ () () | ( (-) |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/attachments/20060517/e417b905/attachment.html>

More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list