[Bug 61579] Re: xfburn crash when creating adding files to new composition

Cody A.W. Somerville cody-somerville at ubuntu.com
Tue Apr 15 13:47:51 UTC 2008


On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Ashok Gautham <scriptdevil at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In contrast, Xfce alternatives to GNOME apps usually suck. The core
> > desktop is the only one that is worth keeping because of it's maturity
> > and relative lighness. And even there, is stagnation unfortunately with
> > GNOME core closing the gap on the performance front.
> >
> > Jani
> >
>
> Agreed. Lets say, I just voiced my opinion. Never mind. But hey! Gnome is
> never going to be as fast as Xfce. The primary reason being they have two
> different purposes. Gnome is all about functionality and Xfce is all about a
> clean feel!
>

And I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that opinion. It is important and
I hope you don't mind me making a few points of my own. :)

First, the purpose of xfce4 is not inherently the purpose of Xubuntu.
Xubuntu uses the Xfce4 desktop because xfce4's purpose fits *our* vision and
*our* purpose.

Second, as we've already discussed, a project/software's name nor where it
is hosted is the basis on which we decide what to seed (include) or not.
Unlike gnome projects, there does not appear to be any standards or QA
process for a project to be hosted as an "xfce project" on the xfce
website/server. Furthermore, just because a piece of software has the word
"gnome" in it does not mean that it is necessarily a "gnome specific"
application or that it even utilizes gnome libs.

So how *do *we decide? There have been plans/discussion to develop a matrix
for easily measuring the quantitative "fit" of a package for Xubuntu.
However, for now it is a subjective decision and I consider the features the
application provides, usability, performance, user interface, maturity,
upstream strength, supportability, and size among other things. Does a
project get brownie points for being an "xfce project" - yup... but if the
application is just reinventing the wheel for the sake of it then it just
isn't going to cut it.

I hope it has became apparent that the question, for me at least, is less of
a philosophical one and more of a technical one. Would we ever consider
ditching Thunar or Xfwm4 for Nautilus or metacity (philosophical)? Of course
not. Will we replace the faulty, feature-lacking xfburn application with
Brasero (technical)? We already did.

As for xfburn specifically, I'd like to hear the rationale for developing
yet another burning application. Hint: We need one with the xfce4 brand name
isn't going to cut it for me. :)


>
>
> --
> xubuntu-devel mailing list
> xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
>
>


-- 
Cody A.W. Somerville
Software Engineer
Red Cow Marketing & Technologies, Inc.
Office: 506-458-1290
Toll Free: 1-877-733-2699
Fax: 506-453-9112
Cell: 506-449-5899
Email: cody at redcow.ca
http://www.redcow.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/attachments/20080415/78729153/attachment.html>


More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list