gnome apps

Jani Monoses jani at
Thu Jan 31 21:38:57 UTC 2008

> 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?

Yes, that was the point. But some of the choices that affect performance 
are out of the reach of the xubuntu dev team. If we want to benefit from 
the advantages of being Ubuntu based we cannot do without some of the 
drawbacks (like not being the speed daemon of distros, base system 
oirneted towards covering a lot of hardware instead of booting fast, etc)

> 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.

I do not think that is necessarily bad, after all you get ease of use 
without a few tens of megs extra that you'd get from gnome panel+ 
plugins + nautilus.

> 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 

It is not Canonical's goal. Ease of use benefits users and they are the 
ones we'd like ot please, not Canonical but also not Xfce diehards or 
advanced users who can and will customize their distro.

> 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 

I'd argue that especially when you get the large number of packages in 
the archives to pick from as with Xubuntu, the sane defaults matter 
more. For zenwalk I suppose they have a relatively small selection of 
fine tuned packages. Being based on slackware and free to tweak their 
base systen they have an edge when it comes to performance that we 
simply cannot be a match for.

This is why it's good to have both. I am convinced Xubuntu is the best 
Xfce based distro for beginners and I wish it stays so.

> 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.

Or a quick and light desktop, but not at the expense of ease of use :)


More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list