gnome apps

[Ghostvirus]

I rarely post to this list, but since the issue of Xubuntu's responsiveness
(or current lack thereof) has been called into question again, I'd like to
chime in.

I'd like to echo Kaspar's comments regarding Xubuntu not being the fast and
light distro some people would like to present it as. I can understand not
wanting Xubuntu to be known as "Ubuntu for old computers" but isn't the
point of using Xfce and light, modular applications (instead of GNOME and
its related apps) to make a quicker, lighter desktop?

I'm still using Xubuntu currently, but far too many people have commented
that Xubuntu is becoming little more than Ubuntu with Thunar, Xfwm and
Xfce-panel installed over it.

Canonical has little interest in Xubuntu. Why are the Xubuntu devs trying to
make Xubuntu fit in with Canonical's goal of an easy-to-use desktop (at the
expense of responsiveness)? Certainly ease of use is a worthy goal, but
Ubuntu is hardly a speed demon. Shouldn't that be why an Xfce-based Ubuntu
derivative exists? Xfce balances ease of use with responsiveness rather
well. It seems to me that Xfce strives to be a user-friendly desktop, but
not at the expense of responsiveness.

Over time, Xubuntu has included more and more of GNOME with each release,
and it seems like the trend will continue. Shouldn't the aim be to reduce
and refine, rather? Zenwalk has done this rather well over its past few
releases. It's a great Xfce-based distro. I think a lot of Xubuntu users
would like Xubuntu to be something of an Ubuntu-based Zenwalk, for lack of
better terms.

I'm not trying to start a Zenwalk vs. Xubuntu war. Zenwalk is a good distro,
but Xubuntu could blow Zenwalk out of the water with its Ubuntu base, if it
had similar aims as Zenwalk. Ease of use, but not at the expense of a quick
and light desktop.

Just my $0.02 as a user.

Ghost

On Jan 31, 2008 1:34 PM, Kaspar Kööp <meborc at gmail.com> wrote:

> i'm sorry to come into between you two, but i have also felt the
> responsiveness i got out of my old lappy, slip between my fingers when
> running the xubuntu gutsy... it used to be so smooth and fast... now it
> hogs... as in fresh install hog... therefore i have moved my lappy to
> something lighter (fluxbuntu)
>
> i understand what Jerome is saying... and i also understand why Jani needs
> numbers to back it down... but how can i back down what i say with numbers,
> how could i explain what i feel using xubuntu every day? i love xubuntu...
> but i have to say the responsiveness has gone from it
>
> why not the developers (before changing the programs) run some benchmarks
> and get values that are really acceptable, so we (the users) could see that
> the change in programs will not effect the overall responsiveness.
>
> Jani, you need to defend your approach, i understand, but please,
> honestly, don't you miss the fast-xubuntu we used to have? or are your
> computers all too new and fast to see the difference?
>
> Kaspar
>
> ps. i'm not trying to push the argument... i just don't like the mentality
> "feels slow? prove it" ... if it feels slow, then it is time to move on to
> something faster... if it feels slow, but you are not able to prove it with
> figures - it is also time to move on... sorry, but thats the way it is
>
>
>
> On 31/01/2008, Jani Monoses <jani at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jérôme Guelfucci wrote:
> > > Well, the changes I remind:
> > >
> > > - gnome-screensaver -> xscreensaver: doesn't make much difference
> > If you think it does not make much difference why change it?
> >
> > But actually it makes a difference, g-s-s is better integrated with
> > power management, multiple users and other possibly technologies that
> > are developed in GNOME and which we can get for free if not so stubborn
> > on being different from gnome.
> >
> > > - file-roller -> squeeze: squeeze is fast, light, seems to have most
> > > features needed for an archive manager. It's stable, upstream answers
> > > quickly to bug reports and features requests. There is a crasher In
> > > Hardy (doesn't happen in Gutsy with the same version) but work is in
> > > progress to fix it.
> >
> > Fast and light as oppposed to what? Do you have numbers to back that up?
> > You do realize that for working with archives, most of the times the
> > factors determining resource usage are the size of the data being worked
> > on and not the app itself?
> >
> > > - gthumb/or whatever was before -> ristretto: ristretto is fast, light
> > > and stable, same maintainer as squeeze and same postive feedback.
> >
> > I have not used ristretto, if it is better thab gqview I am all for it.
> > If the only plus for it is that it comes from Xfce upstream then not.
> >
> > > - gnome-mount -> exo-mount: we just loose one feature, encrypted
> > > partitions, but it's not really a key feature. This change makes it
> > > relally easy to follow debian and upstream changes.
> >
> > So on the one hand you say you have maintainer resources to keep deltas
> > in goffice and gnumeric (see a recent upload of livecd-rootfs by Colin
> > Watson, other's time is indirectly spent because of goffice deltas)
> > which do not give us any real gain, but on the other hand for something
> > that is important as the features of gnome-mount (not only encryption
> > but integration with user permissions ) you drop them to be easy to
> > follow debian?
> >
> > I find that illogical.
> >
> > > - totem -> * : this hasn't been decided yet, maybe mplayer-gtk or keep
> > gnome.
> >
> > it should be something that is patent free as Vincent said and friendly.
> > I am glad that xfmedia is not considered but I wonder why it was put
> > into the seed in the first place.
> >
> > >
> > > I've a P2 450MHz and I can tell you I really feel the difference on
> > > disk usage, memory and cpu usage ! The last annoying application is
> > > Firefox 2 but Firefox 3 should be released on time and should be
> > > really better.
> >
> > You feel the difference in which applications' case? Could you elaborate
> > on how do you feel the differences on the 3 resources you mentioned?
> >
> > That would be really useful data if more precise and confirmed by other
> > users too.
> >
> > Jani
> >
> >
> > --
> > xubuntu-devel mailing list
> > xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
> >
>
>
> --
> xubuntu-devel mailing list
> xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/attachments/20080131/5cb24b96/attachment.html>