<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 05/03/2011 07:57 AM, ross smith wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=TLuJCL_3suj06cV0vQ2NwGxBTbw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I would expect find apps that fit the spirit of the
derivative. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't encountered that phrase before: "the spirit of the
derivative".<br>
What would you say is "the spirit" of Ubuntu? Hardly lightweight,
being a full blown Gnome distribution. Unity is not lightweight
either.<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=TLuJCL_3suj06cV0vQ2NwGxBTbw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> Xubuntu, and Xfce4 are both based around the idea of a
lightweight but fully featured desktop.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It certainly seems so. But certainly not in "the spirit of"
Ubuntu. Why did they bother to call it Xubuntu and yet leave out
everything remotely like Ubuntu? <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=TLuJCL_3suj06cV0vQ2NwGxBTbw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> The apps I would expect to be included with xubuntu are
lighter alternatives to those in ubuntu. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would certainly expect "lighter alternatives" if Xfce sat on top
of a CLI based derivative, but I repeat: Why did they bother to
call it Xubuntu and yet leave out everything remotely like Ubuntu?
</body>
</html>