default applications for natty

[Jim Campbell]

Hi All,

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Charlie Kravetz <cjk at teamcharliesangels.com
> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:09:03 +0200
> Eero Tamminen <oak at helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On tiistai 11 tammikuu 2011, Pasi Lallinaho wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I am simply looking to see whether or not it is worth changing any
> default applications. If we are not the lowest memory footprint, but
> very usable for the consumer, we made the goal.
>
> >
> > And document better & more visible (e.g. in front page) what the balance
> > between these goals means in practice?
> >
> >
> > On tiistai 11 tammikuu 2011, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Do you have pointers to bugs?  Is there a metabug listing all the issues?
>
> Yes, that would be the wrong that states: Orca does not work.
> >
> >
> > On tiistai 11 tammikuu 2011, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> > > 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...
> >
> > What about stating (besides the obvious technical detail of using XFce
> > about which most users might not care so much) the goal simply as:
> >
> > "Accessible[1][2] and easy to use[2] alternative between Ubuntu/Kubuntu
> > and more limited low-end distributions."
> >
> > [1] especially on lower end and thin client machines which don't have
> >     good GL acceleration, now that both Kubuntu and Ubuntu are going
> >     to require that.
> >
> > [2] This includes (memory using) stuff inherited from Ubuntu:
> > - autodetection etc for extra hardware like printers, cameras etc.
> > - localization.  If you don't understand the language,
> >   the stuff isn't accessible nor easy to use.
> > - helpers for disabled users.
> >
> >
> >       - Eero
> >
>
> Hm, I guess it should be made clear that is has nothing to do with the
> default applications in Natty at this point. If you wish to discuss the
> stradegy document, start a new subject.
>
>
>
With regards to the memory footprint issue, I think that Charlie and Lionel
are correct - having a low memory footprint isn't part of the strategy
document.  I think I forget that sometimes, and go off of the initial sort
of "thrust" of Xubuntu, which was to be a lighter alternative.

I'm not sure that this view is widely known outside of those who have access
to the strategy document, though, so perhaps some education / outreach is in
order about this.  Particularly now that Xfce has a menu that is
customizeable and can access remote shares through Thunar . . .  Reminding
people that Xubuntu is a viable alternate for *any* desktop operating system
would be good.  Similarly, for the people who gripe about MB's at boot
(*cough* *cough* me *cough* *cough*), reminding them of what they get with
those MBs (cups, gnome-keyring, etc.) might be worthwhile, too.

It is not something I'm asking anyone to do . . .  I will probably write
about this in the coming week or so.

I appreciate everyone's effort on the project, and am thankful for your
constructive feedback.

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/attachments/20110112/d12610eb/attachment.html>