From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QPIHB-0004X4-BF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:53:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97DDB1C0A4; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609A61C0A4 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywl2 with SMTP id 2so4203653ywl.40 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rvOPdTsGsizwzMe+ZTl+Yx0mBg8w+DvxOoUgxSr0pDw=; b=PSud0HuMEOfhLHAOrD1c7fJqkIUAYJNWiN57dH9ue+AWnTPGEdx0Qs2v6a0HkrHsxm aQCujkWrJxb+bHWVg4Y0hRqYMeCai7OGULLbpzoE8xDPgzzjpPuIPXuYKFyOK2XVAnxA f2tfiBF+4UrtAMaE/c77F0Om48nrLAMZpgsnM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MQOfY61QHS//2/BUXXfnEV9hsVpNEGuwF/GpR7+tQ69UGT/DM0KI4NSFSaverqDQB6 93A/V3HQzbmY0i9i2wea60o3jH2wNz+3AO+7GX6ous4VWGsRNW+1zs2GgACQsoLbNu4f iLydordSFQMi42Ag9GTR51ae9OQWhX7OHWvcw= Received: by 10.101.28.33 with SMTP id f33mr6555536anj.36.1306345923859; Wed, 25 May 2011 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gaurahari.merseine.nu (adsl-72-152-78-99.asm.bellsouth.net [72.152.78.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm24232anh.28.2011.05.25.10.52.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2011 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:51:56 -0400 From: Indi To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5 Message-ID: <20110525175156.GA11206@gaurahari.merseine.nu> References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: ca010d8c860c95a1e5bb611f09d57bea On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:20:01PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >=20 > and have you ever heard of 'code reuse' or 'modularity'? >=20 > It seems - no. >=20 > Because KDE itself might be huge. But once loaded the apps are pretty s= mall -=20 > because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html engine. It do= es not=20 > matter where you type your text etc pp. > I'm sorry, but the "once you load this GB of libs" argument is=20 missing the point entirely... > Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions. > No.=20 Been around the block investigating this, it's BS. I've investigated this quite thoroughly because I have to support=20 users who need everything to be easy and automatic and pointy-clicky=20 (and preferably shiny too).=20 Frankly, arguing that kde4 is a "lighter weight" solution is something=20 only a hardcore zealot or someone who's not used a WM without a DE could = do with a straight face. --=20 caveat utilitor =E2=99=AB =E2=9D=A4 =E2=99=AB =E2=9D=A4 =E2=99=AB =E2=9D=A4 =E2=99=AB =E2= =9D=A4=20