Hi All, <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Charlie Kravetz <<a href="mailto:cjk@teamcharliesangels.com">cjk@teamcharliesangels.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 </div><div class="im">On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:09:03 +0200 Eero Tamminen <<a href="mailto:oak@helsinkinet.fi">oak@helsinkinet.fi</a>> 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. </div>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. <div class="im"> > > 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? </div>Yes, that would be the wrong that states: Orca does not work. <div class="im">> > > 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 > </div>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. <div class="im"> </div></blockquote></div> 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