On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:38:34 +0200 "Constantinos P. Spiliakos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think Gnome people have this very strange dichotomy: > > - "We have tons of config options.." (it's true, sometimes, just not > > where I cared) > > - "..but we hide them, because only experts should use them" > > > > and then they think that just because you're an expert in one thing, it > > means that you should know *Gnome* intimately. > > > I will personally agree with Linus on this one. Being a user of KDE and > Gnome (with metacity and with beryl on various machines), the efficiency > of KDE to people who migrate from Windows to Linux is far better than > that of Gnome which in my humble opinion looks more like the Apple style > approach. True, Gnome might be easy to learn, but then, so is KDE, > Gnome is quite archaic in some ways (nautilus for example) but quite > efficient in other ways (low memory usage). But hey, guess what, we > have two great user interfaces and all of us can choose which one we > want to use. Both KDE and Gnome have their pros and cons, and they will > always have them because there will always be people who like one or the > other, and if you want a broader example, take politics, there are > liberal and conservative parties. > > Constantinos How could you possibly call Gnome memory efficient? A simple experiment (Ubuntu x86_64). Sure the RSS of gnome-terminal is smaller, but they are all about 5x bigger than xterm. PID USER COMMAND RSS SZ 10041 2997 rxvt 2324 832 10075 2997 xterm 3860 1888 10051 2997 konsole 21036 2816 5412 2997 gnome-terminal 19236 16876 -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
