What is the point of Lubuntu?

[Phrea]

We've got minimal install options, we got Xubuntu [[also] a great basis to easily install other WM's/DE's without the 'huge footprint' [as some people call it] that Ubuntu itself has], what is the point of Lubuntu? Installing Lxde on either is very simple, so I don't get it...

Kubuntu is getting hardly any attention because all focus is on Ubuntu [which I think is fair, add KDE afterwards, works like a charm], and to add another version to the Ubuntu family seems to maybe even draw more attention away from what needs to be done.

[chris4585]

I don't like Xfce so Lubuntu with (LXDE) what I like is great!

EDIT: Sorry I didn't really answer your question.

[ronnielsen1]

what is the point of Lubuntu? Installing Lxde on either is very simple, so I don't get it...Installing any window manager is easy. Sometimes it needs configuring. Lxde is faster than xfce. Ubuntu likes to rename when they change window managers. Not all distros do this

[coolbrook]

What's easy for you is difficult for some others.

[ve4cib]

A few other points to consider...

1- Some tests (http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html) show that Xubuntu is actually more resource-hungry than the standard Ubuntu. Lubuntu is significantly smaller and friendlier on old/low-powered hardware than Xubuntu, Kubuntu, or Ubuntu

2- Not everyone has even heard of LXDE, and therefore would not know that they could install it onto a minimal install. Providing a dedicated, branded LXDE-flavoured branch of Ubuntu improves the visibility of LXDE, which may in turn attract more developers, which will ultimately improve the projects.

3- Requiring that people wanting an LXDE-based, lightweight version of Ubuntu to go through a base install, followed by manually selecting packages is time-consuming and will scare many people with older hardware away. Lubuntu "just works" for most people, and does a lot of the setup and configuring for you.

4- As a Live CD Lubutnu is smaller than any of the other *buntu branches, making it potentially better-suited as a system recovery disc than others.

5- Just because it exists does not mean that you have to use it.

[V for Vincent]

In my eyes, Xubuntu is the pointless variant. Run 'em side by side. Lubuntu will fly by comparison. It's true that installing LXDE through synaptic isn't too difficult, but switching desktop environments/window managers can still be daunting to new users. Plus, you're stuck with a lot of clutter from whatever it was you used before.

[chris4585]

In my eyes, Xubuntu is the pointless variant.

I like the way you put that.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Xfce done right is not pointless, but awesome. In my experience so far, Xubuntu has been lighter and faster, as well as much simpler than Ubuntu.

I like LXDE alot, but Lubuntu was awful. LXDE on top of regular Ubuntu, however, was very fast and not as buggy as LXDE all by itself on a minimal Ubuntu install. I abandoned LXDE because it wouldn't work right without a bunch of the Gnome cruft I was trying to avoid.

LXDE takes most of its code from Xfce. It's lean and fast, but not nearly as fully featured or as customizable. I'm going to try out a mixture when I have time to experiment... LXDE with Xfce-panel instead of LXpanel and a few other tweaks for the right mix. Maybe I'll dub it, "LXfce."

Still learning,
Robin

[Sporkman]

In my experience so far, Xubuntu has been lighter and faster, as well as much simpler than Ubuntu.

Agreed - I've always found Xubuntu to be very light & efficient, even on old hardware. I don't know why everybody badmouths it around here...

[screaminj3sus]

I dont get all the hate on xfce lately. I use gnome because my machines are all pretty high end, but I've tried xubuntu and it was pretty nice. Basically felt like a faster gnome to me. Tried lubuntu and didnt like it much, I did like how it has chromium as default browser though.

[ve4cib]

I like LXDE alot, but Lubuntu was awful.

Do remember though that Lubuntu has had exactly one official, complete release to date. It's not unexpected that it can still be refined and improved upon. But as a starting point I've been fairly impressed with it. I think it'll be interesting to see where it goes in the next 2-3 releases.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't think anyone was pulled off the Kubuntu or Xubuntu projects to work on Lubuntu. People who wanted to work on it worked on it, and there's no reason to believe they would have been working on another variant instead.

Seems to me that having a desktop package in the repositories is one thing, but having a project dedicated to shipping a complete, usable distribution based on that desktop is quite another. The existence of Lubuntu will go a long way towards giving LXDE a user base and exposing areas of lacking functionality that need to be filled in.

Along the same lines, other software that might never see much exposure will have a chance to be packaged up and put in front of users. Chromium, for example.

[PCMan]

LXDE takes most of its code from Xfce. It's lean and fast, but not nearly as fully featured or as customizable. I'm going to try out a mixture when I have time to experiment... LXDE with Xfce-panel instead of LXpanel and a few other tweaks for the right mix. Maybe I'll dub it, "LXfce."

Still learning,
Robin
Most of the code in LXDE is written by its developers. Only the task manager is ported from XFCE. The file manager uses exo-icon-view.c take from libexo of XFCE4 and that all. All of these pieces of taken code are well documented with their origin and proper copyright notice and license. So what's the problem? The rest 98% are apparantly not take from XFCE so where did you get the information that most of its code is from Xfce?

Please do not spread incorrect information for things you don't know.
Constructive criticism is welcomed, but slander is not.

[Glenn nl]

The point of Lubuntu is bringing a lightweight and userfriendly desktop to everyone, the aim of Lubuntu is old computers and netbooks.

[Rodney9]

I love Xubuntu 10.4, I love the way you can add gnome applets without gnome being installed. On my laptop conky takes to much room, but with xfce I have the same info , weather, net, cpu, etc on the panels.
Best of all wireless works, where Ubuntu 10.4 killed wireless with it's updates.

Also Xubuntu 10.4 is a LTS version , I don't think Lubuntu is supported.

[Khakilang]

I install Lubuntu on my old Pentium 3 machine and it work like a charm although I have not compare to Xubuntu. I think more flavour of Ubuntu may attract more user who have different computer and taste.

[ukripper]

A few other points to consider...

1- Some tests (http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html) show that Xubuntu is actually more resource-hungry than the standard Ubuntu. Lubuntu is significantly smaller and friendlier on old/low-powered hardware than Xubuntu, Kubuntu, or Ubuntu

2- Not everyone has even heard of LXDE, and therefore would not know that they could install it onto a minimal install. Providing a dedicated, branded LXDE-flavoured branch of Ubuntu improves the visibility of LXDE, which may in turn attract more developers, which will ultimately improve the projects.

3- Requiring that people wanting an LXDE-based, lightweight version of Ubuntu to go through a base install, followed by manually selecting packages is time-consuming and will scare many people with older hardware away. Lubuntu "just works" for most people, and does a lot of the setup and configuring for you.

4- As a Live CD Lubutnu is smaller than any of the other *buntu branches, making it potentially better-suited as a system recovery disc than others.

5- Just because it exists does not mean that you have to use it.

because this ^^ Lubuntu will be supported offcially in 10.10

[MooPi]

With all this talk about the different versions of Ubuntu and the differing DE, has got me thinking. Wouldn't it be nice if you installed a base system and then had a choice from multiple environments with instructions to tweak and tune.Okay we already have this and it's called the minimal install.
I'm a pure Openbox enthusiast but have gone through several installs to tweak and tune to my taste. I now have it down to a couple of simple set up scripts and a list of installed apts to finish the deal. But this has taken quite a while to get just right. Not everyone is patient enough for this process and that is the reason for packaged systems.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Most of the code in LXDE is written by its developers. Only the task manager is ported from XFCE. ... so where did you get the information that most of its code is from Xfce?

I read it here (http://forum.xfce.org/index.php?topic=5251.0). Granted, it's not an "official" source, but it was repeated by several other folks in multiple threads there.

Knowing the apparent rivalry between LXDE and Xfce, I suppose neither side's own forums are a reliable source of information. I did not dig into a fact-finding mission, but just proceeded from an assumption that folks simply would not lie about such a thing. I apologize for that assumption. It never occurred to me that folks in the FOSS community could have any reason to be dishonest about that.

By the way, I love what you've done with the new PCManFM! I always use it instead of Thunar, even on Xubuntu! So thank you for that, kind sir. I don't think LXDE is "ready for prime time" yet, but I look forward to trying it again after it has has developed a little further.

Cordially,
Robin

[ukripper]

I read it here (http://forum.xfce.org/index.php?topic=5251.0). Granted, it's not an "official" source, but it was repeated by several other folks in multiple threads there.



the forum in the link you posted is XFCE forums, it is expected it will be biased.

[kabloink]

The point of Lubuntu is bringing a lightweight and userfriendly desktop to everyone, the aim of Lubuntu is old computers and netbooks.

Exactly. LXDE is great on netbooks. The lighter desktop is more responsive on the low power cpus and less demanding on the battery.

[Simian Man]

If you want your computer to work quickly use Xfce. If you want your computer to not work even more quickly use LXDE.

[Sporkman]

If you want your computer to work quickly use Xfce. If you want your computer to not work even more quickly use LXDE.

Ouch!

[ubunterooster]

Purdue offering a Basil seasoned chicken is bad; you can get the oregano Chicken and add basil to it yourself Variety is the spice of life.

[cascade9]

Xfce done right is not pointless, but awesome. In my experience so far, Xubuntu has been lighter and faster, as well as much simpler than Ubuntu.

Completely the opposite of my expereince with Xubuntu. I'm pretty sure that I've seen you say that later versions than 9.04 I have used a fair bit were better, but when I tried 9.10 it was the same sort of thing as 9.04.


Agreed - I've always found Xubuntu to be very light & efficient, even on old hardware. I don't know why everybody badmouths it around here...

Asisde from ve4cribs link? here-

http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html

There is also-

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427#feature

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature

All those links agree with what I expereinced with Xubuntu- fat, far fatter than it should be. Lubuntu is actually lighter, and thats a good reason for having it (though I wish they would 'fix' Xubntu, not that is every likely to happen).

I was actually going to start some testing on 10.04 in a similar sort of way to the distrowatch links above, maybe compare it to more distros. Since my old 'media obx/testing machine' (a p3-866, 512MB currently) appears to have got sick, thats on the backburner for now. I'm seeing if IU can get a USB keyboard so that a different p3 computer can be used for the same testing (I need a USB keyboard because the PS2 keyboard prt is borked).

BTW, one of the reasons why I want to do this is because I install PCLinuxOS (XFce version) I havent really run many other distros on the same machine, so I cant be sure...but PCLOS Xfce was much worse than Xubuntu.


If you want your computer to work quickly use Xfce. If you want your computer to not work even more quickly use LXDE.

When I tried LXDE compared to Xfce my RAM useage (at idle, just after starting) went from 70MB down to 65MB. I havent really compared CPU usage, but for a 5MB gain...I'd rather use Xfce. ;)

[chessnerd]

Lubuntu offers Ubuntu with LXDE on install, similar to how Kubuntu offers Ubuntu with KDE. So you have the two most popular DEs and now you have two lightweight options: Xfce and LXDE. Sure, it isn't difficult to install LXDE, but if you don't want Xfce, Gnome, or KDE, why install a distro that has that by default?

In addition to that, the competition between Xubuntu and Lubuntu should help to encourage the Xubuntu team to lighten the load a bit. Vanilla Xfce on Ubuntu is just as lightweight as Lubuntu. I have it installed on my older desktop and it uses just 94 MB of RAM on boot. LXDE used about 87 MB on boot. Default Xubuntu used nearly 180 MB.

I have heard that Xfce on some other distros is even better, using only about 64 MB. I think that Xubuntu's bad rep is because of the fact that the team adds too many extras to make its Xfce feel like Gnome. Xubuntu should feel like Xfce and nothing else, similar to how Kubuntu is a true implementation of KDE and Lubuntu is a true implementation of LXDE. Maybe then it would be even lighter than Lubuntu...