[vikjon0]

I really liked the 9.04 xbmcbuntu setup but now am considering if I should use the live installer instead. Do we still need/ want the xbmcbuntu setup? The wiki does not seem to be all that healthy anymore and the question is if it is still needed. If so we should improve wiki.

At least this is not true anymore:

An XBMC Live system will be exactly like the one that this procedure will generate, except that no build environment will be available by default. Instructions for installing a build environment are under "Optional Installs".

Live use Legacy grub.
Live use NVIDIA 190.42 which according to PPA sticky is a pre-req for NVIDIA. (I used 185 myself with 9.04 though). Wiki recommends 185.
Live automatically fix the volume. (manual procedure not clear in wiki)
Live have Disable CPU throttling. (which I am not sure is only a good thing)

I also believe that envy is no longer maintained.

Other comments no directly relateded to the xbmcbuntu vs live issue:
It would be great with a guide how to manually configure the live autostart without installing the live package. This will be cleaner when compiling from source.
I am still confused by the fact that the live PPA is not the same as the official stable. I think the only difference is that usplash is included in live PPA?

[vikjon0]

Also, is it really correct that a xbmc user have to be created manually in the installation procedure? In alpha and/or beta it used the first user created (1000) but this was changed not sure in what way.

I last tested xbmcbuntu with 9.10 a2 and I downgraded grub and followed the old guide with some adustments: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=61606