Ubuntu Linux-based Distro Lubuntu To No Longer Focus on Old Hardware (betanews.com) 85
Lubuntu, a popular Ubuntu flavor, has gained traction over the years for supporting older hardware. As Brian Fagioli writes at BetaNews, one of the focuses of the Lubuntu developers is to support aging computers. However, that is about to change. He adds: When Lubunu 18.10 is released in October 2018, it will ditch LXDE for the newer LXQt. Despite it also being a desktop environment that is easy on resources, the Lubuntu developers are planning to drop their focus on old hardware after the transition. "[...] Our main focus is shifting from providing a distribution for old hardware to a functional yet modular distribution focused on getting out of the way and letting users use their computer. In essence, this is leveraging something we have always done with Lubuntu; providing an operating system which users can use to revive their old computers, but bringing this to the age of modern computing," says Simon Quigley of Lubuntu team.
Errr (Score:2)
providing an operating system which users can use to revive their old computers, but bringing this to the age of modern computing
Pick one. You can't have both.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you? I remember creating a Kali respin (non-PAE) for my old T40 and it worked fine.
Re: (Score:2)
So you picked the former.
Re: (Score:2)
I think being a Lite distribution their goal is to be able to run on modern light systems like small tablets. The old Lubuntu code will still be out there if you want to run this on your ancient computer, but this is a solved problem as far at Lubuntu goes, if they want to further develop it they need to shift their goals.
Re: (Score:2)
what they're saying is: lxqt is a fucking hog, even worse than gtk based lxde, and it won't run on lower-end hardware anymore.
You wish. But my experience with QT contradicts your claim, it is quite light on its feet. Better than GTK by every measure including performance, especially being actual OO instead of a hot mess of C abuse.
Re: (Score:1)
especially being actual OO instead
Hilarious. :) And it had to do no less than thoroughly rape C++ with a preprocessor only to accomplish what Smalltalk accomplished naturally. Meanwhile creating bindings to Gtk+, whatever its deficiencies in manual C programming are (admittedly that really sucks), is way easier, not least because of C++'s ABI's piss-poor interoperability compared to C's ABI, hence the much higher avalability of higher language bindings for Gtk+.
Re: (Score:2)
And it had to do no less than thoroughly rape C++ with a preprocessor only to accomplish what Smalltalk accomplished naturally.
Hold your horses there. I don't much like the MOC either, but it's a small blemish compared to the massive rape GTK perpetrates with C. And the deep rooted crappiness of GTK shows through to the end user. Compare a QT file dialog to GTK for example, just a tiny tip of the iceberg.
Meanwhile creating bindings to Gtk+, whatever its deficiencies in manual C programming are (admittedly that really sucks), is way easier, not least because of C++'s ABI's piss-poor interoperability compared to C's ABI, hence the much higher avalability of higher language bindings for Gtk+.
You're making that up, you obviously haven't done it yourself. I have, so I know you're full of crap. Anybody who has coded in both GTK and QT knows exactly why Lubuntu is switching to QT.
Re: (Score:1)
You're making that up, you obviously haven't done it yourself.
Of course, I didn't need to, what I needed already existed (and I'm not going to duplicate an existing effort needlessly). But apparently thirty three language communities [wikipedia.org] decided to bind to Gtk+, sometimes in multiple implementations, but only fourteen language communities [wikipedia.org] decided to bind to Qt5 (of course some bindings are missing from the list, but that happened to both sides) - which is rather telling, isn't it? Not to mention the amazingly fragmented nature of Smoke and competing similar efforts (and t
Re: (Score:2)
apparently thirty three language communities [wikipedia.org] decided to bind to Gtk+, sometimes in multiple implementations, but only fourteen language communities [wikipedia.org] decided to bind to Qt5 (of course some bindings are missing from the list, but that happened to both sides) - which is rather telling, isn't it?
It does tell you something: the vast majority of GUI apps are written in OO languages now. But even without a binding you can easily put a QT GUI on a C program if you want to. You compile main() as C++, add your GUI there, then the rest of your C code is compiled and called as standard C. Alternatively, you can make the small changes required to compile your C code as C++. Far easier than gritting your teeth and dealing with endless GTK crappiness, and a slicker end result.
I doubt anybody will lose sleep o
Re: (Score:2)
But even without a binding you can easily put a QT GUI on a C program if you want to. You compile main() as C++, add your GUI there, then the rest of your C code is compiled and called as standard C. Alternatively, you can make the small changes required to compile your C code as C++
Except I'm actually mostly interested in putting a Qt GUI on a Common Lisp or Chez program. For C APIs, this is almost trivial because of the fantastic FFIs for these platforms, but C++'s ABI makes it virtually impossible with C++ interfaces because only C++ compilers understand C++'s ABI, not to mention incompatibilities of classes, templates, exceptions etc. Hence KDE's invention of Smoke (which I gave up on around 2010, as I already said).
Anyway, these days I'm mostly eyeing IUP which not only has a rath
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually mostly interested in putting a Qt GUI on a Common Lisp or Chez program.
You're in luck [common-lisp.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you claiming not to know that OOP is a perspective, not a language feature? It makes you embarrassingly ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a real problem when looking at server class systems with very basic graphics cards (often with no and/ or very buggy 3d acceleration)
What the hell are you doing installing a GUI on a server? What it really matters is older desktops, that have no, or very limited video acceleration/3d.
Re: (Score:2)
providing an operating system which users can use to revive their old computers, but bringing this to the age of modern computing
Pick one. You can't have both.
Sure you can. You can support oldish hardware without supporting really really old stuff. A raspberry pi is faster and has more memory than a 486. It makes no sense for anyone to support really really old desktop hardware. The cost of the electricity alone to run a 486 desktop for a year could buy a faster more energy efficient computer. There is some cutoff where continuing to support really old systems causes more problems than it fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
And running a modern desktop on a Raspberry Pi is like a "quick" trip to the DMV. There's no such thing. Modern Linux variants are painfully slow on the Raspberry Pi unless you cut out all modernity and restrict your options to software specifically catering for low hardware performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Focus shift (Score:1)
Our main focus is shifting from providing a distribution nobody uses to one that somebody uses. Also we would like it if people on IRC stopped laughing at us
-Simon Quigley of Lubuntu
Sending users back to Windows XP. (Score:3)
Re:Sending users back to Windows XP. (Score:5, Informative)
hope your happy "freedom advocates". Remember XP requires just a Pentium and 64MB RAM.
Slackware only needs a 486 and 64MB. [slackware.com] With 128MB and WindowMaker, the system purrs for the most part. Of course, that's not my daily driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sending users back to Windows XP. (Score:2)
then slack isnt going to have any packages soon as every distro and dev is doing away with 32bit
Clearly you haven't used Slackware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they can use a different distro...
And they can still use the last version even though its support is now limited. But it's still a lot newer and more secure and better supported than Windows XP.
I have a pretty powerful computer running Debian Sid. Linux isn't solely used for old XP computers
Re: (Score:3)
If you can still use outdated, insecure Windows you can still use outdated, insecure Lubuntu. I see no difference here. Neither will run recent versions of Chrome/Chromium or Firefox. Neither get security updates.
Re: (Score:2)
> Remember XP requires just a Pentium and 64MB RAM
--Give me a break, you can buy a halfway decent PC on Amazon Prime for under $100 these days and ship it nearly anywhere. Practically nobody is restricted to XP low-end specs anymore, and if you stuffed XP into 64MB RAM it would run like ass - even with an SSD.
https://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-... [amazon.com]
--The Core 2 Duo even has HW virtualization in the CPU, FFS. With a 64-bit processor and 4GB RAM, you can do a low-resource Linux host with ZFS, and a small Virtua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that is very slow. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Remember XP requires just a Pentium and 64MB RAM.
It also will implode if you dare attach it to a network, instantly owned by malware. At the very least XP needs to be isolated until you install SP3. When you install SP3 you've got bugger chance of running it on 64MB of RAM.
low resources hw vs old hardware (Score:3)
Supporting old hardware has little to do with low-resource focused distribution (albeit it helps to be low resource on old hardware).
Would it simply be just another desktop install option in Ubuntu then?
For low-resource x86 hw there are other options, I personally like TinyCore. How about for arm hw (RPI etc.)?
Does it still run in old software? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GUI apps on Linux generally work well regardless of which desktop you run them under, and which desktop is "native" for them. This is largely because of freedesktop's work on standardizing the relatively few desktop APIs needed, like tray docking and notifications.
Why not completely drop it then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess it's because Xubuntu (XFCE) already exists, as does Ubuntu Mate.
They are continuing to package Lubuntu, but LXDE is now using Qt.
LXDE available on Debian (Score:2)
What is the value add of the Ubuntu part? Honest question. I appreciate that Ubuntu has popularized the Linux desktop, bringing it to millions of users who otherwise would otherwise be stuck on Windows or Apple, but since I went back to Debian, I've been happier. No more having update-manager doing dark and mystical things, then crapping out in the middle of upgrading to a new version for example. And what the heck is a "software channel"?
For now, running both Debian and Ubuntu on different workstations and
Re: (Score:2)
What is the value add of the Ubuntu part? Honest question.
Repositories, packages known to work without extra fiddling, and the most forum support.
Which packages are those, that are supposed to require extra fiddling on Debian but not Ubuntu?
And what the heck is a "software channel"?
Repositories.
So why doesn't Ubuntu say that? What is this "software channel" newspeak? Are Ubuntu users supposed to be too stupid to know what a repository is?
Sysadmin here .... Don't use update-manager. Waste of time. There is no difference without it.
Not exactly. The Ubuntu way of upgrading to a new version is update-manager, which edits sources.list and who knows what else it does. The Debian way is, edit sources.list, which has been highly robust for me, unlike Ubuntu update-manager.
When LXQT lands in Debian I will certainly try it and see how it stacks up against KDE, it's just an apt install away.
So, a few years ago? Install and try it out. You really should be on stretch and not jessie. Several critical security problems have been flagged as not getting a fix prior to stretch. Worse than anything microsoft has done in years. Dozens of man-hours pinning processes using split repos or portables to get around those problems. Terrible.
LXQT works fine on Buster. I ins
Re: (Score:3)
One additional comment: I ran Civ V from the LXDE desktop, where it had thoughtfully placed the icon all by itself. Civ didn't start, but eventually when I logged out of LXDE, Civ immediately started on the KDE desktop. Other apps didn't have any problem figuring out where and when they should start, so this is a Steam bug. The concept of parallel desktop sessions is a foreign concept to the mind of a game developer? Or more respectfully: nobody thought to try this so nobody noticed that whatever hack they
fail title (Score:3)
NetBSD (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not ancient! Jeeze we're talking about machines that were mainstream 20 years ago and had basically the same functionalities as the ones of today: network access, possibly even wifi, usb extension (sometimes 2.0 !), decent multitasking capabilities, a screen, keyboard and mouse.
Ok they didn't have 64 Gb of RAM to run 3 instances of Chrome but they fared wall and for the most part they still do. The fact that internet browsing now requires gazillions of RAM and processing power is one of the main causes
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ancient!
Well, NetBSD does not require hardware to be decades old.
Try FluXuan (Devuan) or Void (Score:3)
FluXuan [sourceforge.net] Is very light on resources. Boot to desktop and its using 68M only.
Based on Devuan Ascii, you'll be at home if you are used to how Debian used to be, without the bloat.
Of course you could also just use Devuan [devuan.org] with your favorite wm.
If you don't mind being on the leading edge, there is also Void [voidlinux.org], which not being based on any other distro, doesn't have to share a sudden termination of 32 bit support.
There are still many alternatives suitable for old hardware, perhaps take a look at Distrowatch [distrowatch.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Boot to desktop and its using 68M only.
It's at times like this when I remember my Amiga 500 booting to desktop, and being just as functional as your Linux desktop, in 512KB. That's "kilobyte", and there was plenty space left over to run applications.
Ok, technically that's cheating: the Amiga had much of its operating system, including the desktop, in a 256KB ROM. So we should be counting that as well, then...
Now get off my lawn.
Explain to me how LXQt is not a lightweight distro (Score:2)
Explain to me how LXQt is not a lightweight distro. Go.
Re: (Score:1)
P3-733Mhz (Score:3)
If support for old systems is dropped I will drop LXDE.
My smallest LXDE system is a PentiumMMX 233Mhz, 192MB RAM and S3 Virge. I use it mostly for its rather rare Audio-Hardware which requires at least two fully ISA compliant Slots which later systems simply do not offer. While is overall quite sluggish it gets the job done with very little suffering.
Another one is a Pentium III 733Mhz with 384MB of Memory and a Geforce 256. This one works pretty well with LXDE. While Applications take some extra seconds to start they work very well.
I really like the lean approach of LXDE.
If support for old systems is dropped I will drop LXDE.
I realized most distributions that say "32bit"... (Score:3)
still need PAE.
I have a Fujitsu Lifebook from c.a. 2003 and the realization meant that there are a few systems left with true 32bit support.
OpenBSD worked surprisingly well. Though any modern app is going to be slow on such a thing. The biggest problem is the 1024MB of RAM it has.
Re: (Score:2)