Idea for Lucid (and beyond..)

[J. Anthony Limon]

Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> (I stripped some parts to reduce the size of the mail ;)
> 
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:41:03PM +0200, Pasi Lallinaho wrote:
>> Charlie Kravetz wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:05:45 +0100
>>> Steve Dodier <sidnioulz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Both Synaptic and gnome-app-install are being replaced by the Software
>>>> Centre (not sure if it's the exact name). This new app brings a few
>>>> dependencies but it's likely that removing gnome-app-install and synaptic
>>>> will make enough room on the CD for it.
>>>> As long as it doesn't pull mono and gnome* I'm all for giving the new app a
>>>> try.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could ask the desktop team what they think will be ready for Lucid
>>>> in the software centre, and whether they think they'll be able to replace
>>>> synaptic in this release.
> 
> There is enough room on the livecd anyway. I think that we *have to*
> switch to software-center for lucid, because gnome-app-install has
> already been demoted from main to universe in karmic (which means that
> Canonical folks don't want to support it anymore, and since they were
> the only ones touching it…).
> 
>>>>> 2) gnome-system-monitor
>>>>>       
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>> For now, I don't think the Xfce components can deliver the same amount
>>>>> of features and, regretfully, quality. I also like htop, but we can't
>>>>> consider it as the main application for system monitoring, as it's CLI
>>>>> and many people fear command line.
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>> Gnome system monitor monitors system load, network load, ram and swap usage,
>>>> and HDD usage. It may be doing too much for one's needs, but when you want
>>>> to know if some app is using all of your bandwidth, it's cool to can check
>>>> in the system monitor without having to go in command line.
>>>>
>>>> While xftaskmanager may be more appropriate for your needs,
>>>> gnome-system-monitor is in my opinion better for end users.
>>>>
> 
> We have already xfce4-cpugraph-plugin, xfce4-systemload-plugin,
> xfce4-netload-plugin and xfce4-taskmanager. The fact that gnome devs
> decided to make a single program (gnome-system-monitor) for that doesn't
> imply that we should blindly do the same.
> 
> (Anyway, I've no strong opinion on this, I think htop is the best one.
> :P)
> 
>>>>>> 3) Totem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>> I can name only one player that also uses a decent backend and that is
>>>> written with a proper GTK+ GUI. It's Parole, and I'm looking forward to it,
>>>> but considering that it's rather new, we can't expect it to be as integrated
>>>> in the desktop yet (for instance, does it already manage to find missing
>>>> codecs for the user?).
>>>>
>>>> Whats the point of a player with tons of features like audacity, mplayer or
>>>> vlc if it crashes miserably when you launch a file or if the GUI is
>>>> difficult to use because of some particular skin, or very debatable keyboard
>>>> shortcut choices? I'm all for keeping Totem for the LTS, and testing Parole
>>>> from the very beginning of Lucid+1's release cycle (ie. before alpha 1, and
>>>> until beta 1 at least, so we can report bugs to Ali and see what's missing
>>>> from the Xubuntu point of view).
> 
> The issue with mplayer, vlc, or any ffmpeg related player, is that they
> can't be shipped on a live cd (decision of the TB).
> 
> About the missing codecs, I think any gstreamer-based player will be
> handled by gnome-codec-install without problem (this is the case for
> totem currently, so it might work fine for parole as well).
> 
>>>>  [snip]
>>> I do NOT want to look for a firefox replacement and the issues it will
>>> bring into an LTS release. That belongs in the regular release, perhaps
>>> lucid +1. Lucid as an LTS needs to be as solid as we can make it. It is
>>> not the release to test what we can in, but rather, the release to fix
>>> what we can in.
>>>   
>> I have to agree with Charlie here. Changing the default browser to
>> something not Firefox in an LTS release would really make our users mad,
>> even if it was working. And at this time, I'm not sure if midori is even
>> working fairly enough.
> 
> Indeed, there are lots of possible changes:
> 1/ xfce 4.6 -> 4.8
> 2/ brasero -> xfburn
> 3/ totem -> parole
> 4/ gnome-system-monitor -> xfce4-taskmanager, xfce4-*-plugin
> 5/ gnome-app-install -> software-center
> 6/ gnome-screensaver -> xscreensaver
> 7/ firefox -> midori
> 
> As lucid is a LTS, I think we should focus on the most "safe" ones: 5/
> and 6/. Keeping gnome-screensaver is dangerous (who knows what stupid
> ideas will gnome developers have for lucid? -- currently in karmic,
> there's no screen locking without gnome-session); I consider
> gnome-app-install as "unmaintained upstream", so we shouldn't keep it
> either.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lionel
> 
> 

Software Center seems OKAY, as long as it's easily removed (hehe) - but 
it seems to suffer from the same issues as gnome-app-install in that it 
only shows a small percentage of what is in the repositories.

I also think it's a shame that gnome-app-install made it into Xubuntu 
9.10 as it ships with a fairly major bug (no icons displayed for the 
categories).

- J