default applications for natty

Charlie Kravetz cjk at
Tue Jan 11 14:25:25 UTC 2011

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:58:45 +0100
Lionel Le Folgoc <mrpouit at> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 01:11:26PM -0600, Jim Campbell wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Glenn de Groot
> > <glenn_de_groot at>wrote:
> > 
> > >  [...]
> > >
> > 
> > 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.)
> > 
> I would like to see one useful review that tries to identify which
> apps/daemons are contributing to this huge memory footprint, instead of
> repeatedly popping up magic numbers out of their hat...
> > 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.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> Here are some obvious things:
>  * accessibility: lubuntu doesn't install brltty*, ibus*, etc. I don't
>    know how many of them are background apps or daemons, but they
>    probably use memory.
>  * integration: lubuntu doesn't seem to come with avahi, nor with a full
>    cups stack (e.g. no hplip by default). Again, I don't know the
>    impact. Another example is that we build xfce4-session with gnome
>    support (to launch gconf, gnome-keyring and some gnome accessibility
>    tools).
> (there are probably more low-hanging fruits like that...)
> This is easy to fix (I can remove all these packages from the default
> install), but is a bit contradictory with the Xubuntu Strategy Document.
> Let's quote its mission statement:
> > Xubuntu will provide an easy to use distribution, based on Ubuntu, using
> > Xfce as the graphical desktop, with a focus on integration, usability
> > and performance, with a particular focus on low memory footprint.
> So we would have low mem footprint + performance, and lose some
> usability and integration.
> FYI, currently, our default package set wrt to accessibility and
> integration is a copy of the ubuntu one (brltty, espeak, ibus, cups
> stack).
> If we want to fix that, we should probably first try to fix this
> strategy document not to set unreachable objectives with conflicting
> focuses: either we focus on lightness a la lubuntu, and try to cope with
> reduced usability/integration, or we continue what we currently do, but
> we clearly write it in the document ("memory footprint is not
> important"), and then we can stop worrying about all these reviews...

When did the goal of Xubuntu change to low memory footprint
without usability? Lubuntu can have lowest memory footprint. Xubuntu
needs to remain a fully usable distribution. 

And, no, we are not interested in throwing out accessibility. Instead,
we should be striving to be very accessible. There is a whole market
out there that can not use Xubuntu, because accessibility fails for

If you truly believe the stradegy document sets unrealistic goals, why
haven't we discussed those goals? Why don't we decide on realistic
goals and marketing plans? 

- -- 
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