lucius.antonius at gmail.com
Sat Nov 4 19:57:18 UTC 2006
Brian Lawson wrote:
> After reading some responses, I wanted to clarify what I envisioned xubuntuguide.org to be. I hope for it to be very much like ubuntuguide.org. If you haven't checked it out, go there and scroll through it a bit…it will help give some context to this question.
> It is very much an "unofficial" Ubuntu site, which is why I hesitate to attach it to the official (and Canonical-supported) site. For example, ubuntuguide.org contains instructions for adding repositories that contain unsupported, non-free, or possibly illegal packages. While extremely useful, I don't know that the official site would want to be responsible for this content.
> But on the other hand, I don't want to dilute or fracture any momentum the Xubuntu project has going…I want to respect the wishes of the main team, contributors, and users.
Hi Brian (& others),
First off, thanks for offering the domain and the hosting!
I personally like ubuntuguide.org and its style a lot. the thought of
coming up with something similar for Xubuntu seems like an excellent
idea. A few thoughts:
- We should keep an eye on what's going on with ubuntuguide.org, because
the current owner seems to consider moving the content to official
ubuntu documentation. see this thread:
To me, it looks like that won't happen, because of the recommendation of
automatix and other non-official stuff which won't be accepted in the
- How will this xubuntuguide.org relate to the current desktop guide? is
it a good idea to "clone" all the information, risking of having to
constantly fix & update in both? i guess we can look at it this way: the
desktop guide is more of a 'starter' for people wanting to get to know
Xubuntu, while the xubuntuguide.org gives the quick&dirty 'hands-on'
recipe for people who are looking for a specific answer.
- Do we keep it strictly to Xubuntu-related stuff or also other? first
has the problem that users will not find what they need (they may not
know if their question is xubuntu-specific), and the second has the
problem of "cloning" lots of content, leading to maintenance head-aches.
- Please note also that there's something similar for ubuntu here:
- While I don't have anything against MediaWiki, I think it's definitely
not the best looking wiki out there... I personally liked the old
look&feel of ubuntuguide.org a lot better that it had before it was
More information about the xubuntu-devel