On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:21:35AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2004-06-15T15:52:23Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > He got it from someone surmising that my KDE was 200Mb without backing it > > up. > > I think you're probably right. Maybe it's that people load KDE and launch > one program and freak out at the resource usage. They don't realize that > KDE is very aggressively factored, so that first program probably loads 90% > of the resources that they'll ever use. The marginal cost for launching the > second and subsequent applications is almost null. > > For example, I hear people talking about Konqueror's "bloat", which is just > plain ignorant. Konqueror is actually pretty darn slim, but it loads a lot > of shareable components to serve all of the functionality it provides. It's > not like it really has a built-in text editor, PDF viewer, or even HTML > renderer - those are all KParts that it calls to handle a specific task. > Other applications use the same KParts to do the same tasks. To me, it > seems like a very elegant Unix-ish way of doing things. Noone complains > that a shell script is "bloated" because it implements all of the > functionality of sed, grep, and cat.
Of course it is modular and konqueror is rather slim it itself as well as everything else, my problem is that if you look at the dependencies you start one kde or gnome up and it loads up half your disk into memory behind you back. I tried my system with fvwm and gnome (sorry, don't have kde installed) with everything else unchanged, memory usage on startup before starting any programs as about 15MB-20MB difference, that a lot when all I have on my laptop is 256MB memory. That is beside the configurability difference. For me kde/gnome have their place for M$ refugees but I don't like them myself. > -- > Kirk Strauser > In Googlis non est, ergo non est. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
