seed changes

Harold Aling h.aling at
Tue Feb 12 16:15:05 UTC 2008

<749ebd440802120659j1a8f2df9n32c564c5b2ce976 at>
<E1JOwok-0004ER-Kg at zonbu.sait.intra> <749ebd440802120718m6426c838jcf74e23766be96da at>
Message-ID: <52c46f9922833a3a03e0bdebda41a0ee at localhost>
X-Sender: h.aling at
Received: from [] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Tue, 12
	Feb 2008 17:15:05 +0100
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-svn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:18:25 +0100, Vincent <imnotb at> wrote:
> On 12/02/2008, Harold Aling <h.aling at> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:56 +0100, Vincent <imnotb at> wrote:
>> > I've elaborated on the signigicant advantages of g-s-s before, and I
>> think
>> > they far outweight a marginal case as this. Realistically, how many
>> people
>> > have xfwm4 compositing enabled? It's not like it's that much lighter
>> than
>> > Compiz, while it's far less feature rich. It might be more stable but
>> most
>> > people enabling compositing are willing to compromise stability for
>> > features.
>> >
>> Everyone I know that uses Xfce/Xubuntu has the compositor enabled. But
>> then
>> again, they all have fast, modern computers.
> Really? And they (how many?) know about Compiz, have considered it and
> decided against it? I didn't expect that, actually.

Compiz is buggy and I'd advise against it until they have the window
manager part sorted out and fixed... (8.04+?)

Compiz also doesn't work on ATi hardware unless you install the latest
(with very bad Xv support) binary driver. If Xfwm4 could only use OpenGL to
draw the desktop, I would see no reason to switch...

> As soon as a novice Xfce user will discover the window shading option,
>> user will turn it on because it is way more visually appealing and gives
> a
>> nice and helpful (fake) 3D representation of your stacked windows.
> Comparing Compiz' hardware rendering vs. Xfwm4' software rendering is a
> bit
>> weird though.
> You mean that turning on xfwm's effects are easier to enable?

What I meant is the speed comparison is a bit unfare since Compiz uses your
hardware to draw your desktop. Xfwm4 has one of the/the fastest compositing
engine found in comparable window managers (as I was told).

I find it remarkable that compositing isn't turned on by default, since
Xubuntu doesn't really target on PC's of the previous millennium, IMHO.
Those users should try/use Damn Small Linux or an other 'micro'
distribution. (I don't want to cause a stir;) )

My .02: I use Xubuntu because it's based around my favorite desktop
environment: Xfce. I think the main target is/should be 'people who like
Xfce and want the benefits of running it on top of a very populair distro'.

A complete desktop experience can be cut into 'tasks' and those tasks
should have the best option available, with speed an usability in mind.

* Window Manager: Xfwm4
* File Manager: Thunar
* Browser: Firefox
* Power Management: g-p-m
* Bluetooth connection manager: bluez-gnome
* etc.

A Xubuntu release should only contain software that's up to their task. For
example: including a file manager that can't even display the modification
date+time of a file is quite useless. The same goes for a screensaver that
can't switch users.

I like speed, but hate failing apps. I can wait if an app is less speedy,
but waiting has no purpose if the app is never going to do what I'd like it
to do.

I remove all apps I don't like or use and Xubuntu let's me do that even
without removing xubuntu-desktop. A plain Xubuntu is mainly targeted at new
users IMHO, and those users should get a full desktop.


Darned, I swore to myself I wasn't taking part in this discussion, since I
find it extremely childish and utterly non-constructive... I sure hope this
discussion and mud-throwing can be settled very soon, it's very bad for the
good, well-earned reputation of Xubuntu.

More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list