Lubuntu 16.04 Is Sticking To GTK2-Based LXDE Rather Than LXQt

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Lubuntu 16.04 Is Sticking To GTK2-Based LXDE Rather Than LXQt

With today's Ubuntu 16.04 Alpha 1 milestone, Lubuntu put out their first "Xenial Xerus" Alpha 1 build, but it's not terribly exciting...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Lubuntu-16.04-LXDE

[FireBurn]

Does that mean they'll start using it when it stops being actively developed?

[Guest]

Does that mean they'll start using it when it stops being actively developed?

I imagine it means they'll switch to LXQt either when it becomes usable enough (not aware of any bugs or the state of it currently), or they're just being safe considering 16.04 is LTS (and LXDE works), and could easily switch to LXQt with 16.10 or something.

[zanny]

If LXDE makes any sense, they will pull a KDE and adopt LXQT asap after 16.04 so that by 18.04 its finally stable. 15.04 and 15.10 feel like a released alpha and beta respectively for Plasma 5.

[Awesomeness]

I think that's once again a problem with Ubuntu's update policy. Canonical forbids to ship new minor package versions within a release cycle, even though the new version consists of mostly bugfixes. Canonical expects the maintainers to hand pick only the fixes and backport them to the old version. There are a few exceptions like Firefox but that's only because Canonical can't do that by themselves what they ask of community members.
KDE Frameworks 5 get regular bugfixes and according to https://wiki.qt.io/Qt-5.6-release Qt 5.6 (an LTS release) will ship two months before Ubuntu 16.04. Therefore using LXQt with these components would make a lot of sense in an LTS release, even if LXQt packages were not updated.

[cygn]

Although not mentioned in the article, Fedora have also the latest LXQt by the way.
lxqt-session-0.10.0-1.fc23.x86_64

[norsetto]

In debian testing there is also lxqt 0.10 but why bother, xfce uses less resources and xfce is more configurable.

I've been running sid lxde for the last few years and been pretty happy about it. Having tried lxqt as is packaged currently (last I checked there was still stuff in new and experimental) I'm not so excited about it. Let's see how this evolves, but as you say, once lxde is gone one may always switch to xfce.

[SystemCrasher]

Whatever, but programs using Qt are anything but lightweight these days. Qt grown into large monster with features for all occasions, with only .NET and Java being heavier. So calling LXDE Qt light is a misnomer. At the end of day we end up with some bloatware which is heavyweight freighter compared to XFCE yet lacks features XFCE has. Not exactly sure who needs such DE and why. There was some sweet point: LXDE made some sense on low end systems, e.g. ARM boards. But if it going to bring whole Qt this point is getting lost...

[dh04000]

> think that's once again a problem with Ubuntu's update policy. Canonical forbids to ship new minor package versions within a release cycle, even though the new version consists of mostly bugfixes. Canonical expects the maintainers to hand pick only the fixes and backport them to the old version. There are a few exceptions like Firefox but that's only because Canonical can't do that by themselves what they ask of community members.

Uhhhhh, this was a decision by Lubuntu, which is a community OS, not Canonical. Nice try though. Get your daily rant in somewhere else, I'm sure Michael will post another thing that failed or succeeded in getting 200 million user/something.

[Michael_S]

Whatever, but programs using Qt are anything but lightweight these days. Qt grown into large monster with features for all occasions, with only .NET and Java being heavier.

Do you have some data to back up that assertion?

KDE/plasma is heavyweight, because it has a lot of features. The reviews indicate relatively high memory usage for a Linux desktop environment. But I haven't seen anything that says Qt itself is fundamentally heavyweight. Lots of features and lots of libraries is not the same thing as slow.