default applications for natty

Charlie Kravetz cjk at
Fri Jan 7 20:41:33 UTC 2011

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:11:26 -0600
Jim Campbell <jwcampbell at> wrote:

> Hi All,
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Glenn de Groot
> <glenn_de_groot at>wrote:
> >  Hello,
> >
> > here are some of my thoughts:
> >
> > Chromium looks really odd and alien on linux, and Midori is unstable, so I
> > say stick with FF.
> > Claws-mail is really good and lightweight, it will be a good thunderbird
> > replacement.
> > Exaile is not bad but I like (the new) Audacious a lot.
> > It has a beautiful gtk interface and is the most lightweight player I have
> > seen.
> >
> > Also, has lightdm ever been considered?
> > It seems to be awesome and much lighter then gdm.
> > Lxdm is good too.
> >
> > -Glenn
> >
> >
> If you haven't seen the latest issue, Linux Journal has a quick look at some
> alternate desktop environments, and the first one featured is Xfce on
> Xubuntu.  The primary* thing that they noted was that the default Xubuntu
> install ran with 325mb of RAM used, while Ubuntu's default RAM usage after
> boot-up was 328mb (by contrast, Lubuntu used just 167mb of RAM).  They
> actually suggested using Ubuntu with lighter-weight apps (i.e., Installing
> Ubuntu and replacing Rhythmbox with Exaile, etc.) over using Xubuntu.  (Note
> that they didn't *dislike* Xubuntu, but just thought it wasn't a big
> advantage to use Xfce over Gnome.)
> Xubuntu may load some useful features that Lubuntu doesn't load, but that
> RAM usage number is one measuring stick that people use. Would it be
> worthwhile to consider any changes that might allow for lesser memory usage
> at boot?  I'd be willing to help with testing out various configurations and
> reporting back to the group if that would help.
> Also, I went back to look at the "Should we use Chromium?" thread from 2009,
> and a couple of things have changed since then . . . Chromium is now stable
> (it was in beta at the time), there is a legitimate ad-blocking extension
> (not just ad-hiding), and it now allows for community translations (meaning
> we wouldn't be limited to Google Chrome's default language set.).  These
> were all larger concerns at that time.
> I'm indifferent on the mail application.  If it means that we could get rid
> of Xulrunner (which would require switching to Chromium and Clawsmail), it
> might be worth considering switching to Clawsmail, too.  I think yelp uses
> Xulrunner, though, and yelp gets pulled in with some of our gnome-apps, like
> file-roller.
> Jim
> *They also incorrectly ascribed the nice-looking theme to work by
> Canonical.  I'll have to write a letter to the editor about that one.  : )

I have not seen the Linux Journal article, but would like to mention I
could not install Ubuntu 10.10 in less than 384MB of RAM, while Xubuntu
10.10 installed in 192MB. 

Also, what are the differences in hard drive usage? What are the
minimum CPU figures they are willing to discuss? 

I don't think we can compete directly, ram for ram, cpu for modern cpu,
hard drive space, etc. I think we have to stand as an alternative to
Gnome, and if a review does not favor that, maybe that review is not
the one to show.

As for using Gnome, the recommendation may be valid, but Ubuntu Natty
will not have Gnome 3, and will default to Unity. If the recommendation
will still be for Ubuntu, we are not going to be able to compete with
it. We have to remain usable for the majority, at the expense of not
trying to compete with Ubuntu/Gnome. 

- -- 
Charlie Kravetz 
Linux Registered User Number 425914          []
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.           []
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list