- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
First Test Images of LXDE Lubuntu Available
|
|
|
Comments (17)
I guess there aren't enough Ubuntu variants yet...
This could be in line with a previous comment from almost exactly four months ago today, one at 'My take on reviews and reviewers', http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28964/
Performing "the minimal install [of Ubuntu] and then adding LXDE, the dependencies, and some lightweight apps" could indeed make a lightweight LXDE-Ubuntu in a similar fashion as Rosenberg's strip-down of Xfce-Ubuntu .
Excellent points in both cases!
Quoting:Some of y'all have noticed that my distro reviews are "late", often months after release. I also try to get under the hood and look at why and how things work and what, if anything, makes a given distro unique. To do this I have to use a distro heavily for a period of time.
I think Steven's article is spot on in one respect: most early distros are fans raving about their favorite's new release. It's all fluff, no substance, and no criticism of any flaws. When I do point out the flaws in a distro I often get reamed and roundly flamed for it. This encourages more fast fanboy reviews and less real and substantial reviews, which in turn results in everything Steve complains about.
Chris Smart's two distrowatch articles (which also got roundly flamed) aren't reviews in a standard sense. They look at one claim made on the Xubuntu website: that it is the lightweight version of Ubuntu, and debunks it in part 1. In part 2 he explains how a lightweight Xubuntu can be made. It's more about identifying an issue and explaining how to work around it than doing a review.
Performing "the minimal install [of Ubuntu] and then adding LXDE, the dependencies, and some lightweight apps" could indeed make a lightweight LXDE-Ubuntu in a similar fashion as Rosenberg's strip-down of Xfce-Ubuntu .
Excellent points in both cases!
> what is so difficult about doing the minimal install and then adding LXDE, the dependencies, and some lightweight apps? Must everything be prechewed?
But then there wouldn't be any reason to use Ubuntu.
But then there wouldn't be any reason to use Ubuntu.
Quoting:But then there wouldn't be any reason to use Ubuntu.Maybe THE key question to ask vis-a-vis "prechewing" vs. not "prechewing" Ubuntu is really this:
==> Which of the (a) building-up or the (b) stripping-down is really best for optimizing *buntu ??
Is it really best to (a) start with a very bare minimal install of Ubuntu and then build it up with a lightweight DE, the necessary dependencies, and then some lightweight apps? -or- Is it really best to (b) start with any stock *buntu install and then perform a stripping-down of the stock install as much as possible "after-the-fact" ?
For me building up always works best. You never know what you can safely strip out and you always miss things. It never comes out as small or light when you strip down.
I agree, I've always found the smallest install image possible works best.
Not just that there's no accidentally remaining cruft, but that what I want and what someone else's wants never seems to be quite the same list of apps. I always have to add something from the repositories, why not add it all?
Not just that there's no accidentally remaining cruft, but that what I want and what someone else's wants never seems to be quite the same list of apps. I always have to add something from the repositories, why not add it all?
That reminds me: Whatever happened to Fluxbuntu? I still have an IBM Aptiva running it, but it's based on the *buntu 7.04 release. Clearly I don't use it other than to show clients the Fluxbox desktop, but just wondering why that hadn't soared higher on the *buntu radar.
FWIW, thought I'd put in my 2c
I agree with caitlyn and Bob here; it's almost always better to start with the smallest install image and then build up for speed, efficiency, the right apps, ...etc.
That is vv's option (a).
A really nice distro based on this small image + buildup is TC (Tiny Core, not TuxChick!) You download and cut the TC ISO CD, boot this up, and then modularize EXACTLY what you need on top of this with the TCE and TCZ apps of choice. Fast and simple. *buntu's got nothing as trimmed as this!
B u t............, I can also see why someone would want everything ready-to-go in an official Ubuntu release, without having to spend extra effort and time doing a buildup. If I really need a Ubuntu app, then I really DO NOT want to spend time hunting down that app and its dependencies and then make sure that everything works. In this case, it's better for me and others to get it all and then, only later, try trimming down the fat. YMMV. Really a tradeoff.
A really nice distro based on this small image + buildup is TC (Tiny Core, not TuxChick!) You download and cut the TC ISO CD, boot this up, and then modularize EXACTLY what you need on top of this with the TCE and TCZ apps of choice. Fast and simple. *buntu's got nothing as trimmed as this!
B u t............, I can also see why someone would want everything ready-to-go in an official Ubuntu release, without having to spend extra effort and time doing a buildup. If I really need a Ubuntu app, then I really DO NOT want to spend time hunting down that app and its dependencies and then make sure that everything works. In this case, it's better for me and others to get it all and then, only later, try trimming down the fat. YMMV. Really a tradeoff.
Quoting:Which of the (a) building-up or the (b) stripping-down is really best for optimizing *buntu ??
Why don't you try both and compare them? It would make a nice article for LXer :-)
I was quite impressed with this one
Lubuntu a "faster" *buntu even than Xubuntu?
Now there is the project Lubuntu currently in alpha, based upon LXDE and Ubuntu 9.10 ("Karmic Koala"), see direct link at http://blog.lxde.org/?p=514
Some pluses are that the current iso's are all less than 400MB and that Lubuntu is supposed to really run using less than 256MB of RAM. Hopefully fast?
Biggest minus is probably that this Lubuntu project is in alpha testing stages, and is thus buggy. The CD test images are currently available only by torrent feeds rather than straight download of the iso's.
When LXDE-Ubuntu goes through beta sometime after next month's official Karmic Koala, any thoughts on how this will then compare to Xfce-Ubuntu and Xfce/LXDE Debian Lenny for lower-end systems ?
For comparative purposes; Previously linked from LXer concerning Xfce-Ubuntu, by ascending dates :
- March 16, 2009 'Xubuntu and low performance machines: The perfect match !', http://wddc.blogspot.com/2009/03/xubuntu-and-low-performance...
- April 27, 2009 DisroWatch Weekly Feature Story 'Xubuntu 9.04 vs Debian 5.0.1 Xfce', http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427#feature
- April 29, 2009 'Xubuntu vs. Debian Lenny with Xfce', http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/04/xubuntu-vs-debian-l...
- May 4, 2009 DisroWatch Weekly Feature Story 'Minimal Xubuntu 9.04', http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature
- May 4, 2009 'Xfce in Ubuntu/Xubuntu and Debian(/Slackware/fill in the blank)', http://insidesocal.com/click/2009/05/xfce-in-ubuntuxubuntu-a...
- May 6, 2009 LXer thread 'My take on reviews and reviewers' on this piece just above, http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28964/
- July 17, 2009 'Xubuntu: The Better Ubuntu than Ubuntu', http://www.osnews.com/story/21846/Xubuntu_The_Better_Ubuntu_...
---
Some pluses are that the current iso's are all less than 400MB and that Lubuntu is supposed to really run using less than 256MB of RAM. Hopefully fast?
Biggest minus is probably that this Lubuntu project is in alpha testing stages, and is thus buggy. The CD test images are currently available only by torrent feeds rather than straight download of the iso's.
When LXDE-Ubuntu goes through beta sometime after next month's official Karmic Koala, any thoughts on how this will then compare to Xfce-Ubuntu and Xfce/LXDE Debian Lenny for lower-end systems ?
For comparative purposes; Previously linked from LXer concerning Xfce-Ubuntu, by ascending dates :
- March 16, 2009 'Xubuntu and low performance machines: The perfect match !', http://wddc.blogspot.com/2009/03/xubuntu-and-low-performance...
- April 27, 2009 DisroWatch Weekly Feature Story 'Xubuntu 9.04 vs Debian 5.0.1 Xfce', http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427#feature
- April 29, 2009 'Xubuntu vs. Debian Lenny with Xfce', http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/04/xubuntu-vs-debian-l...
- May 4, 2009 DisroWatch Weekly Feature Story 'Minimal Xubuntu 9.04', http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature
- May 4, 2009 'Xfce in Ubuntu/Xubuntu and Debian(/Slackware/fill in the blank)', http://insidesocal.com/click/2009/05/xfce-in-ubuntuxubuntu-a...
- May 6, 2009 LXer thread 'My take on reviews and reviewers' on this piece just above, http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28964/
- July 17, 2009 'Xubuntu: The Better Ubuntu than Ubuntu', http://www.osnews.com/story/21846/Xubuntu_The_Better_Ubuntu_...
---
This is getting nuts, note to Ubuntu, need a light net based installer, you select version and then it pulls those associated packages and customization scripts. Dont say it cant be done, debian has been able to do it forever. this brings the proliferation of respins down to 2, 1 for normal and one for everythiing else. Heck its a couple of scripts, even the package lists could be held online for easy manipulation.
call it nuubs, Net Ubuntu Unique Base Selection. and then toss the "we are different because we draw windows different" concept.
Better yet, just make it an option on the normal installer.
Ubuntu Kubuntu Fubuntu Lubuntu Xubuntu Edubuntu Gobuntu
Plus others that I have missed, then Netbook variants of the same, and not counting spin offs like Mint.
Tell you what, I'll stop yapping about the six month release it regardless cycle, if the Ubuntu folks sign a non proliferation treaty.
call it nuubs, Net Ubuntu Unique Base Selection. and then toss the "we are different because we draw windows different" concept.
Better yet, just make it an option on the normal installer.
Ubuntu Kubuntu Fubuntu Lubuntu Xubuntu Edubuntu Gobuntu
Plus others that I have missed, then Netbook variants of the same, and not counting spin offs like Mint.
Tell you what, I'll stop yapping about the six month release it regardless cycle, if the Ubuntu folks sign a non proliferation treaty.
+1 to azerthoth: NUUBS -- No offense intended, but you MUST be in marketing.
[Fubuntu? And its Chinese equivalent, Kung-Fubuntu?]
I asked on another list, but I'll ask here, too: Whatever happened to Fluxbuntu?
[Fubuntu? And its Chinese equivalent, Kung-Fubuntu?]
I asked on another list, but I'll ask here, too: Whatever happened to Fluxbuntu?
Okay, I guess there IS something like TC for Ubuntu, another mini-installer liveCD which I just mentioned in the other thread. Yet I think that there are still PLENTY of persons who would rather get an already pre-made *buntu like the actual release or this Lubuntu, and then try trimming it down as much as they could rather than using this method of "light net based installer, you select version and then it pulls those associated packages and customization scripts".
IMHO, fb.
jhansonxi, close but not what I said. Trash the 600 hundred spin proliferation, put the option for which you want on the net installer and have it download the appropriate packages and tweaks.
Each spin is just a meta package like ubuntu-desktop. The rest of work is just a theme and branding.
The minimal CD is fine if you know what packages you want and have broadband. If you don't then CDs are easier/faster.
The minimal CD is fine if you know what packages you want and have broadband. If you don't then CDs are easier/faster.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Seriously, what is so difficult about doing the minimal install and then adding LXDE, the dependencies, and some lightweight apps? Must everything be prechewed?