Commercial Support references on the Xubuntu website

Lionel Le Folgoc mrpouit at
Wed Aug 22 18:57:56 UTC 2007

Jani Monoses wrote:
> Jim Campbell wrote:
>> The bottom of the Help & Support page on 
>> <> features this language:
>>     Commercial Support
> I agree, that section should contain a list of companies that provide Xubuntu support explicitely.
> Canonical does not yet (maybe if we'll have a larger overlap with GNOME apps and fewer unmaintained ones
> in the default install)

Why would Canonical do that?
If we had a larger overlap with Gnome, Ubuntu would probably stop
building isos for xubuntu, and xubuntu-desktop would remain a single
metapackage... IMHO, Canonical will provide support for xubuntu only if
they hire someone to work on it ; and obviously, hiring someone to work
on 4 small xfce packages hidden among dozens of bloated gnome apps isn't
going to happen (getting someone to work on an almost-full set of xfce
apps seems more likely to happen).

In the default install, the only "unmaintained" app is xfburn (the svn
is still active though). We had the idea to replace it with brasero, but
I don't think it's a good idea anymore, since we are going to get rid of
the libgnome{,ui} dependencies when the evince-gtk package is fixed.
Xfburn doesn't really works? Let's wait then. I don't think Gnome or
Ubuntu ever considered k3b inclusion because there wasn't any good gnome
equivalent, so why should we do this in xubuntu? Users are able to break
everything by using third-party packages and repositories, so they
should be able to use gnome-app-install/synaptic/whatever to install

For example, I don't see any advantage in replacing xarchiver with
file-roller and gqview with gthumb, except providing a less integrated
and polished desktop (what about ristretto and squeeze?).

Btw, I don't really understand this sudden gnome-is-better mania... :/


More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list