Mr. Waugh:
Having recently read about Mr. Torvalds's comments on the KDE vs. Gnome matter, I found the thread and drilled down into it a bit. It seems to me that the features that Torvalds and others are complaining about are trivial at best, while the complaints themselves are bloated. I intend to continue using Gnome, and I'd like to tell you why: it uses 50MB less memory than KDE. Now, I'd only classify myself as an intermediate Linux user (not an expert, but not a beginner), but I can tell when Mepis and Fedora with KDE use 140MB to show me a desktop, while Ubuntu and Fedora with Gnome use 90MB to show me my desktop. Yeah, I could use Ice WM or no GUI and save EVEN MORE memory, but Gnome gives me features that are worth the extra RAM. The features talked about in the thread are not worth--at least to me--50MB.
So keep up the good work, and don't let your memory requirements get all loosey-goosey like KDE :-) And take heart: from my point of view, the fastest growing and most talked about distribution today, Ubuntu, is doing a good job of keeping Gnome in the spotlight despite the fact that certain people want to throw their weight around to influence people about whose product to use.
Best regards,
Toby Richards
_______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
