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 1QPVgG-0005Yc-QW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:12:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B18A1C055; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8DD1C055 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so408115wyi.40 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 01:10:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=4+jWseO/rjeL8LZ3NH40vxTzkeVTJ5RyJQrSS5x1Z7U=; b=Cr2Wk+NrjE8O1oKyGrRQgUai/6f6lMvPhgYfRXGEIzR3quR27F6cXS7ZADHMlk+yGv TFJCIUJEZR5MDucOGkq27DzS0T4wLmnXf8vIXofEpJUy7cVJPUvV74PgIWxA/H1vRUjx zTjB6J1FGrMWjcn1nq3jEcTZkslDUhVawn6co= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=DWwAU64og8HJFs6ZcnKOSeT5VQYhxu8NzxI8y7glc6iEdzPjI5Tv9fioqqYNkmwPmd nmVNT/T7DFpbD8w9No9pjMr2pYqyz7XDvNhZDYJldRDnQgMCeGdsFyDixDrR4dw1xCEu q49hdvArAAyUG/9NeLtZlxIw5pck0O2D3pvDo= Received: by 10.216.144.2 with SMTP id m2mr459161wej.114.1306397453825; Thu, 26 May 2011 01:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w62sm214228wec.18.2011.05.26.01.10.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 May 2011 01:10:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5 Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:11:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.37-gentoo-r4; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <1971179.7VIGr59rC5@localhost> <20110526045014.GB19404@waltdnes.org> In-Reply-To: <20110526045014.GB19404@waltdnes.org> 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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2306524.h0C8WjgQxQ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105260911.29738.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 66be88e692332b033c15927c2928af91 --nextPart2306524.h0C8WjgQxQ Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thursday 26 May 2011 05:50:14 Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:13:41PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote >=20 > > On Wednesday 25 May 2011 08:46:48 Indi 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 > > small - because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html > > engine. It does not matter where you type your text etc pp. >=20 > Sorta like Internet Explorer in Windows. It "loads" a lot faster and > lighter than Firefox or Opera. That's because ie.exe is merely a "front > end" to a bunch of libraries that are loaded at boot time, which > contributes to the boot process taking do long. Starting ie.exe takes > hardly any time, because 90% of the app is already loaded. >=20 > > Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions. Because > > xterm&abiword&some odd pager&thunderbird don't look so good anymore. > >=20 > > This gem is a couple of years old, but still a worthy read: > >=20 > > http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html > >=20 > >=20 > > Read it. Seriously. >=20 > I don't know how good "exmap" is, but my personal experience is quite > different. Between Fall 1999 and Summer 2007 I had a Dell Dimension > with a 450 mhz PIII and 128 megs of *SYSTEM RAM* (no not the video card). > It was actually quite usable to the very end, with Blackbox WM, and > running a few apps. Meanwhile, KDE (and GNOME for that matter) would > take forever to load and make the system crawl after that, even with 1 > or 2 apps loaded. I remember running Slackware on a Pentium 1 100MHz laptop with 128M RAM. T= he=20 speed was of course glacial unless I was running only a console with no X. = =20 KDE would load and run, as long as I didn't push it too much. Fluxbox was= =20 more respectable. In contrast, MSWindows NT4 would load and run better as it was a more light- footed OS. MSWindows 3.1 was blisteringly fast and MSDOS, well ... However, life moves on and with the cost of hardware coming down software h= as=20 moved towards larger, all bells and whistles, DEs. The change in design=20 philosophy from KDE3 to KDE4 made things worse for those of us who do not w= ant=20 everything and the kitchen sink thrown in, but still want to use some KDE=20 apps. Thankfully, the move to the KDE meta ebuilds has provided some compensation= =20 against a full blown monolithic KDE. Personally, I'm grateful that Linux devs continue to develop exceptional=20 software and so I don't have to use MSWindows. On the other hand I have=20 always preferred more lightweight WMs to the full enchilada of KDE and Gnom= e=20 and wish that KDE devs retained the KDE3 design philosophy, or afforded us = a=20 light(er) option. PS. I'm not sure that Linus is using Gnome. I recall him bitching that th= e=20 Gnome design approach (which unfortunately KDE imitated) was not the right= =20 direction to evolve linux in. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart2306524.h0C8WjgQxQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk3eCzEACgkQVTDTR3kpaLbT2QCghQAx33ve9Qkk4aJfDWWFoCuK FjMAn2Oa7FlOqi6HcOecmcCTiqZt3xFv =DIHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2306524.h0C8WjgQxQ--