Idea for Lucid (and beyond..)

[J. Anthony Limon]

Vincent wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Lionel Le Folgoc <mrpouit at ubuntu.com 
> <mailto:mrpouit at ubuntu.com>> 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 <mailto: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…).
> 
> 
> Let me chime in here: I *did* use gnome-app-install. And it was kind of 
> my fault for not reporting the missing icons - I did see it, and notice 
> it, but didn't really consciously do so. So I didn't report the bug. Has 
> anybody reported it now?
> 
> Anyway, I also told people to use that, because I found it to be more 
> useful for finding "normal" programs, and less scary (normal names, 
> icons, descriptions etc.). I do hope the Software Center will include 
> support for showing all packages in a sane way, but I suppose we can 
> only await that. Lionel's argument in favour of removing 
> gnome-app-install is valid, though, but I'm afraid to see what the 
> effects will be of Canonical not really taking Xubuntu into account.
> 
> As for asking the devs what they think will be ready for Lucid: that's 
> all documented at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#Roadmap
>  
> 

Unless there is a graphical way to view ALL packages in the repository 
the same way that Synaptics does, it does *NOT* deprecate Synaptics and 
should not be considered such. Until it does it is only a deprecation of 
gnome-app-install..

> 
>      > >>> 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)
> 
> 
> xfce4-taskmanager needs some work to be user-friendly, IMHO. Not a very 
> strong opinion on this either, though I'd keep using GSM I think. Of 
> course, it might just happen that the problems get addressed upstream 
> (for either project - are they even maintained?).
> 

As I said in the original message, it is my opinion that GSM is too 
bloated and consistently has too many performance problems for the 
nature of the application.


- J