Commercial Support references on the Xubuntu website

jmak jozmak at
Wed Aug 22 21:34:56 UTC 2007

On 8/22/07, Jani Monoses <jani.monoses at> wrote:
> >> 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?
> Because there will be easier to suuport if it overlaps with GNOME, and will not need a separate xubuntu hire
> if most apps are the same as in Ubuntu, while the core is still Xfce.
> > 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
> speculation :)
> > 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).
> >
> you're exaggerating again. It works to point out less obvious things but
> can be misleading if used too much. What do you mean 4 packages?
> > 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.
> independent decision of getting rid or not of libgnomedeps via evince, although the latter
> could influence it. libgnome stuff is on the liveCD anyway for a11y (orca, gnome-mag )
> since edgy it's just not there on the installed system.
> > Xfburn doesn't really works? Let's wait then. I don't think Gnome or
> then we have to drop xfburn if it does not work or causes frustration, even if
> nothing is replacing it.
> > 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
> not quite the same thing. k3b is for doing advanced stuff, the gnome one is simple but works.
> xfburn does not work.
> > everything by using third-party packages and repositories, so they
> > should be able to use gnome-app-install/synaptic/whatever to install
> > brasero.
> by the same logic we could stop shipping any other app no?
> >
> > 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?).
> >
> I rarely view images so not sure about gqview vs gthumb (the former is definitely faster
> to load) but I know I (and users sitting at my laptop) were frustrated by xarchiver quirks in which
> cases I resorted to the command line.
> > Btw, I don't really understand this sudden gnome-is-better mania... :/
> >
> It's not a mania and it's not sudden. GNOME is better than Xfce in some of ways. Xfce si better than GNOME in other ways.
> I do not think that excludes making a close to optimal mix of the two.

Just a small note. For windows users wanting to change distro is
better not to have an app, rather than include something that doesn't
work. Windows comes with very few applications, so they got used to
the idea of something is missing. But when something is there and is
not working that makes them upset. Anyhow, this is what i've learned
from my experiences.



More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list