First Impressions

[Seva]

And good looks have huge impact on the appeal, so maybe it will boost Porteus popularity. And another thing will boost popularity - vanilla iso file, single official Porteus iso, best Porteus installation, constructor is too geeky for many people.

[Seva]

high difficulty of use is not a good thing, its a bad thing

[donald]

@ Seva
Difficult, for whom?
unnecessary and inefficient code is a bad thing...
and there are various distros out there for the "point and click" clientele.

use what fits your needs, but "point and click" and "work out of the box"
doesn't help much if one wants to gather some knowledge and/or understanding
of how things work...

[Seva]

yes, donald, you are right

for porteus to be popular it should be 'point and click' and 'work out of the box', and its a real challenge to make it so while keeping it unbloated

[Bogomips]

Moved posts here from Previous Linux Background.

And good looks have huge impact on the appeal, so maybe it will boost Porteus popularity. And another thing will boost popularity - vanilla iso file, single official Porteus iso, best Porteus installation, constructor is too geeky for many people.

Have no idea what a vanilla iso file is, but I do agree about the constructor. It's a bit off-putting. Even though experienced, did approach it with a certain amount of trepidation. This was mainly because I wasn't sure, from the descriptions given, that I was picking the right options.

IMHO much better would be to offer the four DEs as tasters,

Code: Select all

e.g. 32 Bit
Porteus-KDE4-v3.1-i486.iso                         14-Dec-2014 19:31           220563456
Porteus-LXQT-v3.1-i486.iso                         14-Dec-2014 19:31           188532736
Porteus-MATE-v3.1-i486.iso                         14-Dec-2014 19:31           210733056
Porteus-XFCE-v3.1-i486.iso                         14-Dec-2014 19:31           177293312

with the further option of fine tuning through the constructor.

Although I joined at 3.0. it was not until 3.0.1 came along, that I realised I did not have to use the constructor, and could just get the iso from the appropriate directory, as shown above.

[sean]

@Bogomips

Your list appears pretty complete. However, since LXQT is not yet at "1.0", and it looks like they are taking their time so as to be there along with (at the same time as) "Ubuntu 16.04 LTS", might we seriously consider an "OpenBox Porteus", and drop the LXQT edition for a period of time to be determined by the developers.

LXDE has stated a slow end of life as LXQT gets up to speed. Might Porteus be wasting considerable time and effort dealing with that tedious transition? I mean I have serious "end user" problems with using LXQT at this time, it's just not there yet! (no offense to anyone with better computer savy using Porteus LXQT)

An might Porteus be better off with an OpenBox version until such time as "LXQT" proves itself reliable and stable, at which time a decision could be made one way or the other?

I try to keep an open eye on Lubuntu, based on Ubuntu using LXDE in lieu of Unity. Those folks seem also to be in a delimma with the transition from LXDE to LXQT, "also?".

Just some thoughts,

Sean

[francois]

In the past there has been some efforts from ncmprhnsbl and ahau to bring that option to porteus as desktop, see:
viewtopic.php?t=2362

The first post provides the module to transform lxde in openbox environment. It explains the additional packages inserted into that module. There is also a DIY open box module for porteus. Maybe some of you could work on it.

[phhpro]

...

[sean]

@phhpro

Thanks for validating my thinking about LXQT and LXDE, really. Others here have said pretty much the same, and since I am a "common Joe", I suppose I just needed some re-validation.

It's been about a year since the LXDE/LXQT merge was announced, and I really see no reason to make the move from LXDE to LXQT. Because I totally agree with your assessment, "LXQt is public alpha at best."

In fact, IMHO, LXDE has made more progress on it's own than the newer LXQt. Just my opinion. But I use Lubuntu on several boxes and pay attention to the progress. It is my understanding that Lubuntu will eventually go with LXQt, but it is my hope that LXDE will remain the base of Lubuntu for a very long time.

Sorry to be speaking other than Porteus, which is why, I suppose I would really like to see a Porteus Openbox edition. Then after all this LXDE-LXQt merging is accomplished ("if"), Porteus can make a sane decision of which light-weight DE to follow/support.

I always have a Porteus LXDE flash drive in my pocket, ready to show off Porteus/Linux.

Sean

[ncmprhnsbl]

if you 're looking for some lightweight desktop alternatives for porteus,
check out the community effort section of the forum,
there you will find lxde, fvwm, openbox, fluxbox, enlightenment(s), i3wm...

[sean]

@ncmprhnsbl,

Fellow Porteusian, your message has been noted, thank you. I will look into your Openbox directly.

I am in error for not keeping up with Porteus properly. I have much respect for your input as you have given me guidance in the past.

Sincerely,

Sean