<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Lionel Le Folgoc <<a href="mailto:mrpouit@ubuntu.com">mrpouit@ubuntu.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 there, (I stripped some parts to reduce the size of the mail ;) <div class="im"> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:41:03PM +0200, Pasi Lallinaho wrote: > Charlie Kravetz wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:05:45 +0100 > > Steve Dodier <<a href="mailto:sidnioulz@gmail.com">sidnioulz@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > </div>> > [snip] <div class="im">> > > >> Both Synaptic and gnome-app-install are being replaced by the Software > >> Centre (not sure if it's the exact name). This new app brings a few > >> dependencies but it's likely that removing gnome-app-install and synaptic > >> will make enough room on the CD for it. > >> As long as it doesn't pull mono and gnome* I'm all for giving the new app a > >> try. > >> > >> Maybe we could ask the desktop team what they think will be ready for Lucid > >> in the software centre, and whether they think they'll be able to replace > >> synaptic in this release. </div>There is enough room on the livecd anyway. I think that we *have to* switch to software-center for lucid, because gnome-app-install has already been demoted from main to universe in karmic (which means that Canonical folks don't want to support it anymore, and since they were the only ones touching it…). </blockquote><div> Let me chime in here: I *did* use gnome-app-install. And it was kind of my fault for not reporting the missing icons - I did see it, and notice it, but didn't really consciously do so. So I didn't report the bug. Has anybody reported it now? Anyway, I also told people to use that, because I found it to be more useful for finding "normal" programs, and less scary (normal names, icons, descriptions etc.). I do hope the Software Center will include support for showing all packages in a sane way, but I suppose we can only await that. Lionel's argument in favour of removing gnome-app-install is valid, though, but I'm afraid to see what the effects will be of Canonical not really taking Xubuntu into account. As for asking the devs what they think will be ready for Lucid: that's all documented at <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#Roadmap">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#Roadmap</a> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > >>> 2) gnome-system-monitor > >>> > >>>> [snip] <div class="im">> >>>> > >>> For now, I don't think the Xfce components can deliver the same amount > >>> of features and, regretfully, quality. I also like htop, but we can't > >>> consider it as the main application for system monitoring, as it's CLI > >>> and many people fear command line. > >>> > >>> > >> Gnome system monitor monitors system load, network load, ram and swap usage, > >> and HDD usage. It may be doing too much for one's needs, but when you want > >> to know if some app is using all of your bandwidth, it's cool to can check > >> in the system monitor without having to go in command line. > >> > >> While xftaskmanager may be more appropriate for your needs, > >> gnome-system-monitor is in my opinion better for end users. > >> </div>We have already xfce4-cpugraph-plugin, xfce4-systemload-plugin, xfce4-netload-plugin and xfce4-taskmanager. The fact that gnome devs decided to make a single program (gnome-system-monitor) for that doesn't imply that we should blindly do the same. (Anyway, I've no strong opinion on this, I think htop is the best one. :P) </blockquote><div> xfce4-taskmanager needs some work to be user-friendly, IMHO. Not a very strong opinion on this either, though I'd keep using GSM I think. Of course, it might just happen that the problems get addressed upstream (for either project - are they even maintained?). </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > >>>> 3) Totem > >>>> > >>>> [snip] <div class="im">> >>>> > >> I can name only one player that also uses a decent backend and that is > >> written with a proper GTK+ GUI. It's Parole, and I'm looking forward to it, > >> but considering that it's rather new, we can't expect it to be as integrated > >> in the desktop yet (for instance, does it already manage to find missing > >> codecs for the user?). > >> > >> Whats the point of a player with tons of features like audacity, mplayer or > >> vlc if it crashes miserably when you launch a file or if the GUI is > >> difficult to use because of some particular skin, or very debatable keyboard > >> shortcut choices? I'm all for keeping Totem for the LTS, and testing Parole > >> from the very beginning of Lucid+1's release cycle (ie. before alpha 1, and > >> until beta 1 at least, so we can report bugs to Ali and see what's missing > >> from the Xubuntu point of view). </div>The issue with mplayer, vlc, or any ffmpeg related player, is that they can't be shipped on a live cd (decision of the TB). About the missing codecs, I think any gstreamer-based player will be handled by gnome-codec-install without problem (this is the case for totem currently, so it might work fine for parole as well). </blockquote><div> This would require someone to make an objective analysis. Meanwhile, I don't really find Totem particularly bothersome, so I would place that low on the priority list of things to do, and also (as said) not something to do for an LTS. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > >> > >> [snip] <div class="im">> > > > I do NOT want to look for a firefox replacement and the issues it will > > bring into an LTS release. That belongs in the regular release, perhaps > > lucid +1. Lucid as an LTS needs to be as solid as we can make it. It is > > not the release to test what we can in, but rather, the release to fix > > what we can in. > > > I have to agree with Charlie here. Changing the default browser to > something not Firefox in an LTS release would really make our users mad, > even if it was working. And at this time, I'm not sure if midori is even > working fairly enough. </div>Indeed, there are lots of possible changes: 1/ xfce 4.6 -> 4.8 2/ brasero -> xfburn 3/ totem -> parole 4/ gnome-system-monitor -> xfce4-taskmanager, xfce4-*-plugin 5/ gnome-app-install -> software-center 6/ gnome-screensaver -> xscreensaver 7/ firefox -> midori As lucid is a LTS, I think we should focus on the most "safe" ones: 5/ and 6/. Keeping gnome-screensaver is dangerous (who knows what stupid ideas will gnome developers have for lucid? -- currently in karmic, there's no screen locking without gnome-session); I consider gnome-app-install as "unmaintained upstream", so we shouldn't keep it either. </blockquote><div> Agreed. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Cheers, Lionel -- Lionel Le Folgoc - <a href="https://launchpad.net/%7Emrpouit%0AE61E" target="_blank">https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E</a> 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJLGpPvAAoJEGXZpm4Q4paaBxEP/3wSufL471QlvYBfnWMGEUmj V7lRZTJ+J1DGkY3tQXMLGuNe7+cXR6epxhmFjVx+FwmIbSzsUekrB8d6cYUaN4Sk jguJwhFRzE9iYNkNL+EUvVJbHK+d9fEtLCWe3aGMi8cxk++bi8FdJM3DhPsRS3Uv RybMFAeDSiWXiGgMS5NFR4KbnnBScCcaMhbv2Ga8gqbvKXcJKDVeZY6FeSiK+ovb lZ9Rw/dCWMCWO4PVaUPCEPbFpGHhqYByYfOFNaioo8leNqTscUWaa5rlw2Ph3n0O n4SiSHRfE4STgxO1XmKNo5BIa8/xAAB4ajZ32Bm2+3f1pTmNADTXOEFhJtLWNesc 2Y047E7IEKFZPKYKSuFcr/pgvecYtWPp5vRuJY7JryoZ3vVA0iFWMxXTNfItYC7S 6oFJnv9FfHHG8e1zgh8x+PJB1AEs6OPZGbacreLiSdTaO3Ij+qYcrdAVqepL7iUk QZ0ZT4p3QtKk0IRPu5cZDPOxhfLUCdCpvEuAVU3OYEqNS5dblG44/8zq3nHDZJ1m 9x63IAW44JbnIB7ZIHz+aJAi724ePuDma7hfjxuX+317H200ZgbQe6q5IHjF3T/l nznATQdsdxJq3QeGWHfzSEOdNh+IZxymbU4aiwJAtc2ExPnfV9WIBhL47flfrkuX EfiMSeucgX5rUV0JdTNF =SEIJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel</a> </blockquote></div> -- Vincent