default applications for natty

[Pasi Lallinaho]

On 01/11/2011 04:25 PM, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:58:45 +0100
> Lionel Le Folgoc <mrpouit at ubuntu.com> 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 hotmail.com>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
> them.
>
> 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?
>
I don't think the strategy document is completely false, but trying to
strive for a lower memory footprint is not completely false. I think we
just need to find the golden path in between.

-- 
Pasi Lallinaho                              » http://open.knome.fi/
Leader of the Shimmer Project               » http://shimmerproject.org/
Webdesigner, graphic artist, Ubuntu member  » IRC: knome @ freenode