On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 23:59, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and > > > the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is > > > Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly > > > rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean > > > GUI that only provides the features I need. > > > > Yes, but you've also removed yourself from the mainstream Linux destop. > > While choice is certainly an important aspect of Linux, it's also a bit > > misleading to compare something that most users will never see with > > Windows. > > Quite the contrary. It is misleading *not* to mention this option, as > Linux clearly is superiour to Windows in this regard. People cannot > decide to use this option if they don't know about it.
I agree that the fact that Linux actually has options is an important aspect that people should be aware of. However the fact that alternate window managers and desktops remain marginalized cannot be disregarded either. The simple fact is that most people claim to want options but then use what's in the mainstream anyway. My concern is that people will advocate Linux as having a faster desktop and then when people try it (defaulting to GNOME, probably) they find this claim to seem false, they will doubt other claims made by advocates (security, stability, etc). In short, when comparing Linux and Windows, I feel it's best to stick to the typical installation. Otherwise we can also toss in my home desktop which at the moment is running kernel 2.6.0-pre2, GNOME 2.3 and most of the rawhide repository. It isn't too stable <wink>. If we start tossing "out of mainstream" configurations into the mix then I suppose we can call Linux less stable than Windows as well. In short, compare "typical" configurations, but make people aware that there are alternatives that can affect performance. > > If we're going to talk GUI's on Linux we should stick with > > GNOME and KDE for the sake of comparison. The people who know how to > > install alternate desktops aren't the people interested in comparisons: > > they already know. > > Again, I strongly disagree. It's vital to mention this to the ordinary > user as well, as it is an important advantage over Windows. I don't disagree. I simply take the position that claiming XFCE is faster than Windows is pointless <wink> > [...] > > > IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you > > > have in Windows, > > > > And this is indeed what your average user (especially those coming from > > Windows) wants. > > Not true. I've met Windows user (among them my wife), who were *quite* > happy to have a lean GUI like e.g. Window Maker and *preferred* them to > the bloated GUIs, despite the (short) learning curve at the beginning. > They just didn't know it was possible before that. All the more reason to > make them aware of this possibility. We may just have to disagree on this. I don't know anybody running anything besides KDE/GNOME (mailing list denizens aside. I'm referring to people I actually know). Most distros make these the default and I expect most people new to Linux will encounter these first (and perhaps exclusively). As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it look pretty), do you *really* see any performance gain? Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
