OSNews

One should make IceUbuntu or wmUbuntu, that would be the fastest Ubuntu

If you are going that route you can't forget fvwmubuntu, or just fvunbuntu for short.

Pah, I don't want all that *bloat* on my desktop. I just want to get productive as quickly as possible.

That's why I use twmubuntu!

If you weren't such a n00b you'd be interested in bashbuntu. It boots to a shell!

> If you weren't such a n00b you'd be interested in
> bashbuntu. It boots to a shell!

Personally, I run nobuntu on my old machines. No power requirements, no cables to worry about, instant "on" when you flip the switch, and it's never once given me a problem with hardware detection.

Actually, Ubuntu Server does just that.

BTW, if you're interested in ICEwm or some other window manager without having the bloat of two window managers being installed, you should be able do an apt-get and set yourself up without too much difficulty.

Is it just me or does Xubuntu not look like Xfce - AT ALL.

No, it doesn't. If they were going to fool with the theme, they should've tried to make an XFCE/Human hybrid rather than a green and orange mess. I love this idea, but once they change the basics of XFCE, what's the point of Xubuntu?

Xfce is plenty configurable. They just don't know how to configure it in an optimum way yet. I started using Xfce in its current development version, 4.3. Before this version I would use mainly Gnome, so there's definitely something good in this version.

What's the point of Xubuntu? To be the best lightweight Linux desktop on Earth, but being heavyweight is mainly a question of bloat. :-)

(BTW, you have done a good job with the whole login/rating system on OSnews, to my surprise, thank you.)

I didn't mean to imply I have a problem with Xfce, because I definitely don't. See my previous reviews of Cobind etc. I have been a big fan for awhile. It's just that Xubuntu doesn't really look like Xfce, it looks like a custom version. I just wish they had better integrated, which appears to be what you're hinting at for future versions.

Well, this is a screenshot from the Xfce site:
http://www.xfce.org/images/screenshots/snap_VI.jpg

and this is a screenshot from the Ubuntu review
http://www.x64bit.net/site/board/index.php?s=e9dae175ce40770f099fdc...

It seems to me the only thing they've changed is to add the launcher menu and change the style. The launcher arguably makes it easier to find programs, and changing the style makes sense: it's a Ubuntu variant, so they might as well throw in the Ubuntu branding.

Of course, this is all the new Xfce, version 4.4. Possibly the argument is that Xfce is changing. It's got a lot of the paraphenalia that Gnome and KDE now have, including its own library (the impressive Xfce Foundation Classes), and is on it's way, despite itself, to being a full-fledged desktop environment.

Darn, I wish I could have seen the soup nazi error screen. I guess I will just have to wait until the next time OSNews goes down. That shouldn't be too long.

They messed that up -- newbies! :-)

Login: ubuntu
Password: (nothing -- just press enter)

"1) Other than ease of install, is there an advantage to using *buntu instead of straight-up debian?"

The main Debian version is the stable one. It's "stable" for a reason, which is that the packages have been thoroughly tested and now updates are mainly due to security reasons. The problem is that the stable version of Debian gets old too fast. One year in Linux time is plenty of changes, and Debian stable can't keep up with it.

With Ubuntu, we get new releases every 6 months or so, which guarantees that we have somewhat updated packages in a "stable" release, which is maintained with security patches as well.

With Ubuntu Dapper, we will get the best Linux distro to date, because it will have plenty of updated packages which will be maintained with security patches for more than 3 years (people say 5, but in Linux time that's too old. :-)

Thus, Ubuntu is generally more up to date than Debian. If you use Debian unstable, you can get updated packages, but if you break your distro with the unstable packages, few experts will want to help you to fix it.

There are other differences as well, but let's keep it at this for now.


"2) How does KDE or Gnome slow down the system? Obviously they require more disk space, because they have more built-in apps/features. I suppose they might use more memory. But, the load on the video should be about the same as xfce - I would think."

First thing is that depending on the theme that you use, you may get a slower experience. The theme that I use that comes with the development version of Xfce is very simple and fast, thus I choose to use it.

Also, Gnome and KDE are more integrated. Xfce has a very modular approach, which has changed a little to more integrated with the latest version, though. But even so, Xfce is very modular. It means that unless you open all the Xfce windows at once, you will use only the resources that you have open, which are quite few.

Finally, Xfce has a long history of trying to appeal to the low resources systems. All this baggage Xfce brings with itself in every release, which means that if you have a slow system, you probably can use it. But if you have a fast system, Xfce will fly. :-)

Which means that the differences in speed are inherent the development model of each project.

Other than ease of install, is there an advantage to using *buntu instead of straight-up debian?

There are cases when Debian is easier to install than *buntu, it all depends. In general, I'd say that there are both advantages and disadvantages to using *buntu instead of Debian proper.

It is noteworthy that *buntu supports officially only a small subset of the packages that Debian supports, and only officially supported *buntu packages receive security updates. This means that if you're using lots of packages from *buntu's universe, your system may be open to several critical security vulnerabilities. Debian "testing" has its own special security team that concentrates on fixing any known security problems in "testing" as fast as possible.

When *buntu has just been released it usually has many packages that are newer than their equivalents in Debian "testing". However, *buntu's package repository is frozen for six long months and after a month or two has passed since the latest *buntu release, Debian "testing" has usually caught up with *buntu and it is also likely to introduce some newer packages when compared to *buntu. But this varies. Lately Debian "testing" has been kept quite up-to-date while *buntu's release date has been delayed.

In conclusion: Most of the time Debian "testing" has newer packages than the latest stable *buntu release and it also receives much more comprehensive security support than *buntu.

I think the Xorg version of this Xubuntu beta is a little older than the one in the Ubuntu beta. I have a version that's working the my Radeon + Dual Head setup, and I don't want to update it because I fear that it might break. On the other hand, I didn't even expect that they would fix the Xorg code in time for Dapper.

If you install Xubuntu on your harddisk, you can update the packages and see if the latest Xorg version works for you.