Sorry. It was: Totally agree Jason.
Chao. Offray Vladimir. On dom, 2002-01-27 at 13:33, OFFRAY LUNA wrote: > Totally agree Matthew. > > Cheers, > > Offray Vladimir > > > On vie, 2002-01-25 at 05:56, Jason Bechtel wrote: > > Matthew, > > > > From a scientific viewpoint it naturally makes more sense to compare > > the actual "window manager" portions of each system. But why would any > > system administrator responsible for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of > > corporate Linux desktops take the time to customize KDE so that it runs > > faster and consumes fewer resources and doesn't provide too much rope > > for the users to hang themselves with just to find that the next release > > of KDE changes where all its config files are stored, the organization > > of its modules, etc.? Why would the sysadmin change distributions to > > Caldera (assuming most are not already using it) to get a decent > > preconfigured KDE? IceWM is sitting there waiting to be used > > effectively in its "out of the box" configuration on any distribution. > > It has all settings in one configuration file. It allows for individual > > configuration files *if needed* but doesn't force them on you. It does > > provide "desktop manager" type features (toolbar, menu, hotkeys) without > > actually allowing users to manage (alter) the desktop themselves. You > > can always give them this ability with add-on utilities and personal > > configuration files. > > > > http://www.icewm.org/index.php?page=utilities > > > > Don't get me wrong. Your point is absolutely correct. KWM and IceWM > > are probably very comparable in their speed and their ability to put > > decorations and controls on windows and to place them sensibly on the > > screen. But no one runs just KWM. The point that myself and some > > others are making is that the reality of the situation (what matters) is > > what users and administrators actually do with the software. And in my > > opinion, I would rather install a fast simple system that doesn't > > overload my server and then add functionality as needed. > > > > I don't think anyone is blaming KWM for KDE's bloat. They're just part > > of the same package. > > > > Jason > > > > PS: XFce 3.8.14 is out <http://www.xfce.org/>. > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:48:13 -0800 (PST) > > > From: mslicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Michael H. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Well then if you can compare Windows Managers (WMs) to desktop systems > > > then why not compare KDEwm to ICEwm? > > > > > > Let me tell you something, without the underlying desktop componant > > > architecture (and applications that use it), you will use vastly more > > > system resources as you add simultaneous users and applications. > > > > > > KDE and GNOME tend to be slow on most major distrobutions because the > > > distrobutions are configuring them in a very heavy manner. The same > > > number of things configured without a desktop system would be completely > > > unthinkable in terms of performance. Try Caldera's 3.1 desktop to > > > illustrate how fast KDE can be, if better refined. Red Hat, Mandrake, and > > > SuSE stuff as much flashy garbage in their distrobutions as they can so > > > they can make money on CD sales.....everyone upgrading to see all the new > > > things. > > > > > > Caldera's focus is on business systems and is therefore the only refined > > > distrobution I am aware of. They do not focus of stuffing as much on a CD > > > as possible and quick upgrades for CD sales.. Unfortunately, their model > > > isn't as profitable in the short run. > > > > > > Most impression is, probably a lot of you who are advocating ICEwm as a > > > "replacement" for KDE or GNOME are actually using both desktop systems and > > > not realizing it. You can get similar performance just by optimizing all > > > the stuff that gets loaded with you default desktops. The KWM (KDE's > > > default Window Manager) by itself is in fact very fast, I'd even think it > > > might be faster than ICEwm. > > > > > > Or, try replacing KWM with ICEwm and then see if KDE runs any faster or > > > slower? > > > > > > What I'm saying is, you are blaming the wrong thing for you desktop's slow > > > performance. I gaurantee it. > > > > > > --Matthew > > > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss > > For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss > For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
