Jani: Is it a goal of ours to become "officially supported" like the other two derivatives? <div>On 1/11/07, Jani Monoses <<a href="mailto:jani.monoses@gmail.com"> jani.monoses@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The term supported is vague and this leads to misunderstandings. The dev quoted by Cody, heno (Henrik Nilssen Omma) was right: xubuntu is supported by sharing the same archive as the 3 main variants, by having its developers in MOTU and/or ubuntu-core-dev, by providing ISO build facilities and not least by 'unofficial' good will from many canonical devs who take xubuntu issues in consideration when working on u/k/edubuntu specific stuff. What it does not mean is financial backing from Canonical apart from bandwidth and the implicit developer time their employees spend on Xubuntu specific stuff. So no 24/7 commercial support for customers or pressed CDs. And this makes a lot of sense from their POV as long as xubuntu has a relatively small community (distrowatch is a misleading metric) and they want to keep focused. So having daily images by no means makes xubuntu supported. For instance those dailies could be broken AFAIK since there are no people testing them regularly.That would be risky to support. The best way you can make xubuntu better is by contributing your time and not wait for canonical or someone else to bear all the costs. I hope this clears it up. Jani -- xubuntu-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com">xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel </a> </blockquote></div> -- Firefox (<a href="http://www.getfirefox.com">www.getfirefox.com</a>) -- A browser you can trust