Coming soon...

In addition to a review of Xubuntu 7.04 "Feisty Fawn", I will eventually (as in very soon) be doing a content-creation shootout between two distributions designed for creative uses, dyne:bolic and Ubuntu Studio Edition. These two distros have the same goal: to provide tools to let a person's creativity loose on the world. These include audio-editing tools like Audacity and Ardour, graphics tools like The GIMP, and even video editors like Kino, all available for free. But there are some key differences:
-Desktop choice. Ubuntu SE uses, as far as I can tell, the default GNOME that Ubuntu uses. dyne:bolic uses XFCE, an uncommon, but favorable, choice.
-Performance. Multimedia editing of any kind demands a half-decent system. I've learned this the hard way. Ubuntu recommends 256MB of RAM for operation (for GNOME), while dyne:bolic claims that it can run on as little as 64MB. (This is even more impressive because Xubuntu recommends 128MB of RAM, and, like dyne:bolic, it uses XFCE.) In addition, Ubuntu can run a 386, whereas dyne:bolic needs a Pentium or K5-class CPU or later, but this is actually an advantage for it. Ya see, nobody really uses a 386 for multimedia production anymore, and Ubuntu would probably run obscenely slowly on a 386 anyways. However, optimizing a system for a Pentium (i586) allows it to run faster. The last i586-optimized distribution I tried, SAM Linux, was roughly 150% faster than Ubuntu.
-GNU-ness. Ubuntu isn't a completely open-source distribution. (That would be gNuiSance.) dyne:bolic is. It's also a Live CD, whereas Ubuntu Studio doesn't have a live version (and a text install, like Breezy).
-dyne:bolic has a cooler name. This is always a big criterion. Not to mention Jaromil "The Rasta Coder", the inventor of dyne.org and the forkbomb... :(){ :|:& };:
From Xubuntu 7.04,
The DistRogue.