> Then file bugs on it. Honestly, I have used GNOME > desktops for years > all day for development, and I very rarely have run > into any problem > as severe as I had vague complaints about. Also, I > sincerely doubt > there are any memory usage problems with Gtk in > general, I suspect it > is more likely in the application you are using.
yeah, blame firefox, gnome-terminal, thunderbird, great. > > > > You seem to not like GNOME very much or the most > > > capable open source > > > browser we have available for the platform. It > might > > > be better if you > > > proposed alternatives. > > > > maybe it was too much sticking the whole GNOME. > the > > real problem is the gtk library. Unfortunately > that > > means everything else shares the problem. This is > not > > just on nexenta, it is also a problem on Linux > > distro's and I have felt this way since RH9. If > you > > feel that is unfair then i guess you must also > feel > > that Linus Torvalds is unfair with his gripes with > > GNOME then. > > No, the real problem is not the Gtk library. If you > have specific > proof of a problem in Gtk, please file a bug or > share the technical > details. Linus Torvalds gripes about GNOME have not > been about memory > usage at all, rather customisation, window managers, > and input > methods. calling 'using a lot of memory' a bug...hahahaha I can hear the laughter, no thank you. > > > The best alternative is to have alternatives. I am > not > > going to say KDE, WindowMaker or whatever. > > There are many alternatives available already if > users want them. wonderful, i will be exploring what is on Nevada. > > > > > is a real pity that firefox and thunderbird > use > > > gtk. I > > > > am not saying everything gnome is bad but the > > > > underlying gtk stuff is something that I have > not > > > had > > > > a very nice experience with. Of course, the > > > nexenta > > > > choice of deb packaging is very nice. > > > > > > What else would they use? > > > > qt. > > Qt's licensing remains an outstanding issue. > Trolltech's licensing > page claims you can use it under the QPL with any > Open Source license > approved by the OSI, but their licensing page has a > few > contradictions. Only saw the QPL now. The QPL sounds like GPL and more. > > I refuse to use a windowing library that forces my > software to be GPL. > Gtk doesn't do that. My choice of license should be > mine and not that > of the library I am using. the viral GPL eh? I can live with it but yes, i guess i will have to look elsewhere if i don't want to use GPL on my stuff... > > > > > I'd want sun cc compiled packages and stable > sun > > > > libraries with gcc and glibc stuff available > > > separately. > > > > > > That's what we have right now at last check. > > > > Which is fine. My first open solaris installation > is > > nexenta which for your information is gcc compiled > > although with sun libraries. > > > > That is not very far from gcc + glibc solaris. I'd > > rather Ian Murdock NOT take Solaris down that > road. > > Well, you're certainly welcome to that view. I don't > see Sun taking > the route of Nexenta, although I don't think there's > anything wrong > with it. Every distribution meets the needs of > different folks. Cool, you must love the sun/gnu ld incompatibilities then. To each his own. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
