10 ms·
I have never used Lubuntu other than trying it out a few times, so this is just going off of the content in the article. > This phrasing is a PR blunder in my
by asadjb 8y ago
I have never used Lubuntu other than trying it out a few times, so this is just going off of the content in the article.
> This phrasing is a PR blunder in my opinion because the old focus is a lot clearer than the new focus
To me, it seems that they ran the numbers (kudos to them for taking an empirical approach) and figured out that their original USP was now no longer unique enough, and they need to do something different to stay in the game.
But this article makes it seem like they haven't figured out what that something different is. They list a number of things they are going to provide, including:
- leverage modern, Qt-based technologies and programs to give users a functional yet modular experience
- Lubuntu will continue to be a transparent and open distribution
- create and maintain complete documentation
And a few others. But none of these seem to be different enough from the other great choices available as Ubuntu flavors.
That's just my read on the article anyway.
- Animats 8y ago"Modern, Qt-based technologies?" Qt is 27 years old. It came out for Windows 3.1.
- bmn__ 8y agoIt did not stop improving since then. "Modern" describes the current status, not when it came out initially.
- copperx 8y agoWindows is 32 years old and people still develop for it, sometimes even for profit. And wait until you hear about Unix.
- XzetaU8 8y ago> Qt is 27 years old. It came out for Windows 3.1. Same as NTFS file system then
- lproven 8y agoNTFS was NT 3.1 -- in 1993. Win 3.1 (1992) used only FAT.
- exergy 8y ago> But none of these seem to be different enough from the other great choices available as Ubuntu flavors Yep. "Gets out of the users way" is what a lot of Ubuntu's goals are about already.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoWas that sarcasm?
- yellowapple 8y agoEven at its worst (with Unity), I'd say Ubuntu does do a reasonably good job of staying out of users' way. Maybe not compared to other distros with lighter environments, but certainly compared to, say, Windows 10.
- exergy 8y agoNot at all. It wasn't a comment on how well they manage it but both Mint and Ubuntu seek to work "out of the box" to the greatest extent possible. In my opinion, they do it much better than any other distro.
- apatters 8y agoYep that's a great point, maybe they are not communicating what the unique benefits of Lubuntu will be in the future, or maybe they don't actually know what they'll be. Right now Lubuntu's niche is really clear for me, if I want a lightweight, general purpose distro I use Xubuntu. If I want a really lightweight, general purpose distro I use Lubuntu. (A step beyond that if I wanted "so damn light there are probably a lot of things I don't be able to do, I would think of Puppy or Damn Small or something, neither of which I've needed to touch in a long time, not sure they're even still maintained.) So if Lubuntu is no longer my super-light distro, erm, what is it. A competitor to Xubuntu? (Total side note, I really love the space of light, clean, functional desktop operating systems. The most exciting development in computing for me personally would be if someone figured out how to commercialize one as a competitor to Windows and Mac. If I thought there was a good business model I'd start that company myself.)
- pweissbrod 8y agoIn my experience such "lightweight" distros, over time, accumulate expanded functionality/compatibility/surface area and inevitably/gradually become "heavier". Then the community complains "X" is too heavy, we need a lightweight system! and the cycle repeats itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dmix 8y agoWhich is why ArchLinux is so nice that it doesn't suffer from this type of growth by nature of its design. You can very easily layer lightweight frontends on a very reliable core.
- krageon 8y agoPutting Arch and reliable in vicinity to each other is stretching it a little.
- yellowapple 8y ago
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoThat's Linux Desktop distributions in a nutshell though isn't it? None of them are really different enough from Ubuntu to be noteworthy. Personally, I think the fact that so many minor-variant distros exist is all the evidence you need that Linux is a terrible platform for customization, because if it were simple to customize everyone would just use Ubuntu and make their own changes, but instead you get all these distros.
- roblabla 8y agoIt's proof that Ubuntu is a terrible platform for customization. Most other distros don't have that split - whether it is ArchLinux, Fedora, CentOS, NixOS, and what have you.
- padraic7a 8y agoWell Fedora and CentOS are both more or less RedHat splits surely.
- jsight 8y agoNot exactly. Fedora is more like a non-LTS version of RHEL, if we oversimplify it a bit. CentOS is more like a split, but their goal is to be functionally identical to RHEL.
- freeone3000 8y agoCentOS isn't even a split. CentOS is RHEL with different distribution without the trademarks - it's binary-compatible and documentation-compatible, and matches versions patch-for-patch. Fedora is more like a split - it's the people who like RHEL but want a faster release cycle.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoThat might be because a lot fewer people actually use them as a Desktop.
- tssva 8y ago