Fluxbuntu‘s aim is to be a lightweight, productive, agile, and efficient operating system; this review takes a look at Fluxbuntu and whether it lives up to the challenge of creating a user-friendly experience on a tight resources budget. The review discusses included applications, ease-of-use, and some of the limitations of this featherweight operating system.
here: http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/index.p…
According to the review Fluxbuntu makes a lot of compromises in order to scale down to “low end” machines. Thing is, I’m not really sure how many of the compromises are actually necessary. Xmms for one–were there truly no new audio players available?
There’s also apparently a distinctive lack of end user support if the reviewer’s comments about the help file are to be believed. The setup of the theme also leaves something to be desired in my opinion as well, but I’m a Gnome man so that’s to be expected. The kicker though is the mistake made in the shortcut for Gnumeric and lack of popup-blocker for their choice in browser.
Bottom line based on this review I’d say Fluxbuntu isn’t ready yet.
–bornagainpenguin
Which “fould compromises” do you mean (by name)? I think the choice of applications leaves the user with a functional system with some basic software. Of course, if you’re from KDE or Gnome, most software will not look sufficient to you (“outdated”, “boring”). On the other hand, additional software can be installed, even things based on Qt or GTK. So it should be possible to obtain the software which is needed to perform the desired tasks – and I think that’s why you usually install software upon an OS.
May I ask what’s the problem with XMMS? I’m just asking because I’m still using it… maybe I shoudl reorientate?
Just by the way, I do use many “outdated” software just because to gain speed: xdvi, gv, sylpheed. I want to benefit from new hardware instead of seeing how more power is consumed by more ressource hungry software. 🙂
Maybe Opera can be installed additionally, and maybe it runs well (here it runs well on a FreeBSD 5 system on a 300 MHz P2, for example).
I will download it and try on “dated” hardware. Believe me, I still have it available, and it’s as “dated” as you can imagine. 🙂 No no, I’m just kidding. I will not try to run it on a 150 MHz P1 (which runs FreeBSD at the moment (emrg workstn). But the mentioned 300 MHz P2 should be a good point to start. I will report on it later.
May I ask what’s the problem with XMMS?
It uses GTK1 IIRC, and e.g. in my system it would be the only program that needs that, i.e. it’s waste of resources to have whole huge set of libraries only to play some audio files. So, it’s better to use something newer that uses shared libraries other programs use too.
Or, use something console-based, e.g. Orpheus.
Ah yes, I see. I didn’t recognize this problem first because on “low end machines”, you usually have more software that “still” uses GTK1 librries, e. g. sylpheed, xchat or gvim. But GTK1’s libraries should not take as much disk space as GTK2’s do, and because in most cases there’s enough free disk space, it shouldn’t be that problematic. But if GTK2 is already present on the system, why not use something like Rythmbox? Or if you intend to use Qt applications (but without KDE as the desktop environment), use KDE’s solution, I think it’s… erm… Kaffeine? Amarok? Something with K at least. 🙂 I’m not using KDE on a daily basis, so forgive me for not knowing their complete set of accessories.
“Console based” is usually associcated with “not comfortable enough” or “cannot be run with X” (that’s what xterm is for). For “just play it” (file extention association), tools like madplay or ogg123 shoud be fine – they don’t need huge sets of libraries and are able to play music files. Of course, they do not come with a built in playlist system, but that’s the UNIX philosophy: One tool per task that completely fulfills the task. By the way, they can be used with X, too. But I think you’re right, there are console-based players with lots more comfort existing which should rum completely fine on “low end hardware”.
The only one I know of is audacious, but having used both XMMS and audacious I have yet run into anything where audacious is better. Is there anything in particular that is wrong with XMMS.
There seems to be a trend in all music player software projects to turn their players into all singing, all dancing, do everything monstrosities. I don’t need or want my music player to rip CDs or try to “manage” my music or guess what I want to hear next or flash pretty colors on the screen or really do anything much more than play sound files and let me add and remove files to a playlist.
Sadly, you can see this approach nearly everywhere. In my opinion, this is what most users seem to want, but they usually pay it with more ressources needed (better hardware).
When I hear things like “I have a 2 GHz Core Duo with this and that Linux, my audio playback stops and skips all the time.” I cannot imagine this. Really! I didn’t experience such problems on a 150 MHz P1 running FreeBSD 4, WindowMaker / IceWM and XMMS. And the thing even played videos with mplayer…
In Germany, we have a term for this: eierlegende Wollmichsau (pr. “eyerlayganday vollmilshsow”; tr. “egg laying wool milk sow”), a kind of “one size fits all” or “one application does everything” characterization. Allthough most of them are modularized, the first experience at the users’ site is: “Wow, this one does everything!”, and that’s what most users insist on. As you mentioned, even CD creation utilities do DVD ripping, de- end encoding, video stream editing, MP3 conversion and maybe image editing (for the CD/DVD cover).
Of course, this approach does not follow the UNIX philosophy where you usually have one tool per task. There are meny tools available, but you devide which one you use, judging from your own experiences and feelings. Then, you combine tools to achieve the goal you have. Regarding CD creation, this could be a combination of mkisofs and cdrecord.
Often, I notice “hard core UNIX guys” being much faster with the “little” programs they use because they know them well and have learned how to use their features. Average users, given an “egg laying wool milk sow” kind of application, usually start searching, clicking, searching, trying, retrying, guessing… and finally producing a DVD that won’t play. I’ve even heared complains such as “This is too much! I just want a simple program!”
It’s good we have a choice in UNIX / Linux land. 🙂
I agree with you, I love XMMS, in fact the first thing I do after installing Mint Linux is remove Amarok and install XMMS. I really only use it for streaming audio, but it works fine on my MP3 collection also.
I’d very much prefer OpenBox, but the names would be horrible – “Openbuntu”, “Boxuntu”, etc.
Uboxu? 🙂
Obuntu could be an ok name for an Openbox-based alternative…?
Openbox is nice and I would have nothing against people using Openbox more, but I have a feeling there’s just more activity and developers around Fluxbox still? More enough that there is now Fluxbuntu but not yet “Obuntu”?
When you count the amount of active developers, many open source software projects that people may consider even relatively big (like XFCE) are surprisingly small. Time will tell if Fluxbuntu will gather enough momentum, users and developers in the future?
Edited 2008-02-12 22:22 UTC
Why do all non-gnome/kde apps go with gnome apps instead of KDE ones? The only one that used KDE AFAIK was SimpleKDE IIRC, and that didn’t go too far.
because it’s a lot harder to find pure qt apps than pure gtk apps, so many KDE apps are just that KDE, which means the hassle of ripping apart KDE and maintaining it, OR installing all the KDE libs, which puts you a couple megs away from just having KDE anyway.
On a 300 mhz computer with 128 of ram, my fluxbuntu box is snappy. There is only a slightly noticable lag when playing media or heavily multitasking. This is definitely a distro that can revive old hardware!
I totally agree with you guys…if there was an easy to use distro that has a strong focus on Openbox I’d immediately switch to it. Kind of an Arch Linux-like distro but without the extremely complicated install process. Perhaps one day Ubuntu/OpenSUSE will realize what a wonderful lightweight WM can do and come up with an Openbox edition of their distributions.
have you tried grafpup?
I don’t understand why many ppl are so interested in windowmanagers. It’s pretty boring, just manages windows… If you don’t like KWin or Metacity, replace them, and be done with it. It’s not like you’re gonna run a WM without apps, it’s not much use on it’s own…
Because in many ways it’s the most important piece of software on your computer. It decides what you can and cannot do with your desktop, how it’s done and how it looks while you’re doing it. It sets the tone for a large portion of your computers useability.
But how am I going to know what to replace them with (or even know that replacements exists) if I haven’t taken the time and interest to learn what is out there and what the different solutions have to offer.
hmm, ok, you’re right – if you want to replace them, you need to read around a bit. But then again – what do they offer which KWin doesn’t? OK, fluxbox IceWM offer also a very basic desktop/taskbar, so it’s more than a WM.
I was too negative, sorry about that.
Man, I am as much a fan of KDE as you are but you truly need to leave it aside for a day or two and start to explore a few other things.
My favorites alternative WMs are WindowMaker and IceWM but I sometimes use Fluxbox, too. IceWM together with ROX-Filer – using the pinboard so that you can have icons on the desktop – is very pleasing to use, especially for those of us that still use machines built in the last century…
Edited 2008-02-13 14:00 UTC
Sorry, I was more negative than I meant to be. And you’re right, on light hardware, things like IceWM rock 😉
I don’t want to repeat the content of the replies you got, but I think it will help you to understand if I may add the following:
Because they stay out of my way and let me work, I’d say. 🙂 As always, it’s about choice. You want to help users of CDE to feel comfortable? Use XFCE 3. You are low on ressources? Use IceWM. You want a good integration of mouse and keyboard, along with a professional setting? Use WindowMaker. You want a complete desktop environment? Use XFCE 4. You want to stay mainstream? Use KDE or Gnome.
Window managers don’t limit you in your applications. Of course, “consistent look” does not have to be a topic for you, in most cases. For example, to me it does not matter if I use WindowMaker with gv, xdvi, StarOffice, Opera and Firefox altogether.
This is what a window manager primarily is intended for. It is responsible to care for everything the applications do not need to care for. Just imagine, every application in X would have to care about window managing by itself, what a chaos and separation would occur!
Why replace them? Just use another window manager, that’s what they’ve been created for. They don’t limit you in the use of your programs, for example, you can use K3B with IceWM, too, or Gnumeric with XFCE 3.
By the way, there are users who don’t need, or better, insist of not having a desktop environment. They seem to be the majority of the users of “old fashioned” window managers. (“Old fashioned” is not their intention to use them; theirs is “professional”, “fast”, or “perfectly fitting”.)
Exactly, that’s the point. You run a window manager to “assist” your applications and have a means of managing them in the way you want. Window managers are a class of applications that are very important, but are not used on its own, you’re completely right here. So it’s about your choice which window manager to use so you have the most fun, the most comfortable feeling or the most productive setting for the applications you use to get your stuff done.
I’d like to hear why you prefere OpenBox over, for example fluxbox. I use fluxbox quite a bit, but I’m always interested in something better.
A review of a lightweight distro which has to make compromises with fancy super-heavy stuff like openOffice & does not mention the memory use or disk usage at all is IMO not much of review .
ROX & fluxbox is a great combination
Here I of course have to recommend vector-linux
I’m started to get annoyed by the fact that every DE/WM/Distro which lacks a lot of features or is limited in another regard (eg a WM just manages windows and lacks anything else) calls itself ‘easy to use’. Thanks Gnome, bringing that stupid idea to the table! Now for all the user knows, TWM is easier to use than Gnome, as it simply has less features…
Even Enlightenment calls itself ‘easy to use’, and be honest, Enlightenment rocks but is as easy to use as a wallet is an efficient toothpaste.
You’re introducing an existing problem here.
For the first part of your sentence, I completely agree with you. “Easy to use” is a term that mainly depends on individual experiences, on your knowledge, on what you are familiar with and what you’re used to know. For example, to me IceWM’s menu configuration file is “easy to use” because I can simply put any application into it that I like. To others, this is “hard to use” because it involves techniques they don’t know about (i. e. editing a text file in a hidden directory).
Regarding the second part of your sentence, I think you are wrong. The self-declaration “easy to use” does not come from limitiations of functionality. Just imagine KDE. It can easily be declared as “easy to use” but it does not concentrate on a certain subset of functionalities; instead, it tries to address all imaginable ways to use it.
In my opinion, “easy to use” is something that only users can tell of. Their experiences are mainly the result of how good developers could implement something that is easy to the user. And as I explained before, that’s very individual.
TWM is eally fine if you’re running a low end machine as a HMC or a NFP where you don’t have much interaction and window shifting. 🙂
As I said before, it depends on the user. What makes some piece of software “easy”? Which criteria have to be applied? I think it’s neccessary to make this clear first. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an important discussion, but as I said many times before: Computers are not easy. 🙂
Partly, I agree with you – it depends a lot on what you do and who you are. But be honest. Sometimes, you see improvements to an interface which don’t let it loose any features or flexibility yet make it a million times easier to do stuff in em.
So there are improvements possible – which improves usability. Sure, I wouldn’t know how to objectively asses interfaces for that, so it’s hard to judge – but I think some projects clearly spend more time on it than others. Enlightenment looks good, but I don’t think they did much to get very usable. KDE does, lately, and Gnome does for a while already (though for a big part the imho wrong way, by removing stuff).
Anyway, that’s my point. Screaming “we’re easy to use” – everybody does that, but it takes work. Gnome got a long way (but imho *decrease* usability for most users by focusing on a hypothetical, stupid, common user). And KDE is working on it as well. In FOSS, I think not many other projects really did much in that area. Some separate apps, maybe, but often it’s lack of resources which leads to lack of features, not a striving for usability. So don’t claim it is usable in such a case…
I am sick and tired of hearing 300MB distros being called ‘lightweight’. DamnSmallLinux is a fully functional distro that runs on any old PentiumI or even 486 and is only 50MB in size. Any other Distro that calls itsself light weight has to be compared to that.
Edited 2008-02-14 14:37 UTC
Ubuntu has a very clear and reasonable trademark policy. Yet these stupid distros still pop up. Show some respect!