<div>On 05/02/2008, Jim Campbell <<a href="mailto:jwcampbell@gmail.com">jwcampbell@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;"> Hi All, <div> <div>From what I know, Jani has done a whole heck of a lot to get Xubuntu started.  We can't underemphasize that.  I don't know all of who was involved from the start, but without Jani's initial efforts, there might not have been a Xubuntu.  He deserves respect for that reason.   That being said, Jani did say that he was going to stop involvement with Xubuntu for this release.  I'm sure that someone can look up the note on the ML archives.  And I think Lionel really has been the primary packager for a good while now.  The amount of work that he has done has been truly remarkable.  He deserves respect for that, too.  And we all see the regular names in the mailing list – I won't mention anyone by name here for fear of leaving someone out.    There's been a lot of back and forth, but it does just seem like there's an ideological conflict in regards to what packages are included in a default Xubuntu installation.  Some individuals are on the side of keeping Xubuntu as Xfce-based as possible, even if it means a little less functionality.  It seems like they see adding gnome-based applications as watering down the whole purpose of Xubuntu, they want to keep things lighter than they are in gnome.  Others are in favor of adding a few more gnome-based applications – even if it means that Xubuntu might use up a few more system resources, the OS would be more user friendly . . . .  Also under consideration is whether an application just feels faster/slower or actually is faster/slower.  Bugginess and practical considerations such as the amount of time required to update packages and merge patches also come into play . . .   There's a number of perspectives and issues here.  That is fine.   But until we get this settled, until we get a common approach to application selection that we can come to terms with as a team (even if not everyone agrees 100%), I feel like we're going to keep facing these same discussions release after release.  It seems like a waste of time, and it creates bad feelings amongst each other, and toward the project.   What can we do?  Can we create test cases for possible app inclusion?  Would there be individuals willing to test particular apps head-to-head in VM's and report back on their findings?  I'm a bit inexperienced in this regard, but are their app testing tools that can measure the performance and resource usage of a particular application and its dependencies?  This could be something where we can have a set window of time to propose new applications, a set window of time to test them and report back . . . etc.   The current set of people who are doing the packaging and updates might not like this – it might slow them down, and they already do enough work already.  The above items are something that non-packagers could get involved with if shown how to do it, though (at least told what apps might be helpful in benchmarking other apps . . . ).  It would be something that I'd be willing to help out on.  Comments, suggestions?   Thanks, all,   Jim</div></div> </blockquote></div> Branching this off to another thread in order to focus the other discussion to the issue at hand, as suggested by Cody. Anyway, if this could work I'd be willing to help out too. -- Vincent