On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:54:46 +0100 (BST) Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Lee Braiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's debatable, actually. It could be argued that, since desktop > > environments *do* share libraries etc, they reduce redundancy and > > therefore > > memory and load times. One could even argue that, since the code in > > Heh. When was the last time you tried to load KDE or GNOME? They take > an absolute age, pulling in I don't know what -- and whats more, the About 104 days ago, when I booted the machine. (Actually that's not quite correct -- I restarted the X (thus KDE) session shortly after upgrading to Sarge a few days ago). Still, the load time doesn't bother me all that much, even though I"m running a relatively underpowered machine by today's standards (Athlon 1000 mhz). I do have quite a bit of RAM here (768 megs), though. > case of KDE that loads a lot of libs for applications, whether you use > them or not. Which parts of libraries will likely be "evicted" from RAM when it becomes necessary -- or even if not. Only the really needed parts of libraries are really brought in. Some KDE apps do bring in more libraries than "traditional" (non-KDE) tools, for instance: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ldd `which konsole` | wc -l 40 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ldd `which xterm` | wc -l 19 But, as another poster pointed out, there are shared similarities among various components of a desktop environment, and because of shared memory, one might only haev a single copy of a library shared among those components at any one time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED] change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
