Problems for GNOME

[insomnia]

Seems like Slack will drop it and leave Dropline as its only GNOME desk...
http://www.dropline.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3430

Pat is not the only one who thinks like this.
GNOME really needs to become easier to compile.

[ October 16, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[WMD]

I like a lot of Gnome apps but not Gnome itself; so,  I have it installed (but use other stuff), and use Slack.

I don't think I'd like to install Dropline...I hear it changes a bunch of stuff in the system, and I don't really want Gnome running the OS, especially if I don't use it.  

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't like GNOME but it's better than KDE.

I use XFCE it's more of a desktop that a simple Window manager as you can drag'n drop suff, and it's fully GNOME computable, it will work with file roller and other user friendly GNOME apps with out all the bloat.

KDE is Windows for Linux, it's bloated, unstable, and it even comes complete with it's own MSIE equivalent.

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
KDE is Windows for Linux, it's bloated, unstable, and it even comes complete with it's own MSIE equivalent.

Try using KDE on something other than Red Hat and you may change your mind.     KDE in Knoppix runs fast on my dad's 900Mhz, 256MB laptop.

And Konqueror is NOT an IE equivalent.  Yes, it's a web browser and file manager, but it isn't integrated into the OS.  Big difference.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
I don't like GNOME but it's better than KDE.

Why?
I still don't like their licence system(only the Trolltech part), but I do think it's the most powerfull desk out their(including OSX).

It does ask a lot of ram tho...

[ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:

Try using KDE on something other than Red Hat and you may change your mind.             KDE in Knoppix runs fast on my dad's 900Mhz, 256MB laptop.

KDE in Knoppix is faster than Red Hat on my machine my works computer but I've always found it slower than Windows XP or Linux running some other Desktop like GNOME. The problem with KDE is it tries to do too much with the same module, this wastes memory for example Konqueror is a file / compressed archive manager, desktop layout and web browser plus a whole lot more. GNOME is better because all these features are provided by different modules for example the archive manager is done by a separate file roller program even Windows XP uses a different module for archives.

KDE may run fast on 256MB when all you're using is KDE plus a few small applications but as soon as you load Openoffice.org (which i criticise for the same reason as KDE) + The GIMP with a big picture my system slows to a crawl. Loading the same programs with the same files in Windows XP the performance is acceptable and under XFCE no swap memory is being used my system runs even faster. Now I know XFCE isn't a fully featured desktop but you can download most GNOME utilities and increase it's functionality without casing a resource hog, I have used file roller with it and it works a dream.

I know that if you have lots of memory you may benefit from having more programs loaded as it means that you don't have to wait for them to load, but if you don't or you load very big files you're system can hard disk thrash or even crash (well X has hung up on me on numerous occasions when using KDE)

   

quote:Originally posted by WMD:

And Konqueror is NOT an IE equivalent.  Yes, it's a web browser and file manager, but it isn't integrated into the OS.  Big difference.

Well IE isn't an integral part of Windows either, its part of the desktop you can download other desktops for Windows too. (I can't remember the name of the one I tried but it sucked anyway)

   

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:

It does ask a lot of ram tho...

Exactly, KDE's a major bloat factor in most modern Linux distributions, I consider Windows XP a light OS if you compare it to a full graphical install of a modern Linux distribution. Take Fedora Core 2 for example:

   

quote:
Memory Requirements:

This section lists the memory required to install Fedora Core 2.

Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
Minimum for graphical: 192MB
Recommended for graphical: 256MB

WTF! 64 fucking MB just to run in text mode, XP will run graphical with this amount of RAM. (I wouldn't expect good performance though) And 192MB minimum for graphical, I can run XP with 128MB with acceptable performance.

Compared to Windows XP

   

quote:The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:

Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)

I have used Windows XP on 128MB at work and it gives acceptable performance, its faster than both Red hat and Knoppix is on my 256MB box.

However nothing beats Vector Linux

   

quote:VL 4.3 Hardware Requirements

The minimum hardware requirements to run VectorLinux 4.3 are a 166 MHz Pentium class processor with 32 MB of RAM memory, and just 850 MB of hard disc space (*).

To have a more comfortable experience with VectorLinux 4.3 we would recommend a 233 MHz (MMX) processor with 64 MB of memory as a minimum.

[ October 21, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

[WMD]

You appear like you've just had back luck with KDE.  I've never had much of what you describe. (Then again I use XFce primarily    )

 

quote:Well IE isn't an integral part of Windows either,

Yes, it is.  With ActiveX, the browser can control the system.  It partially runs in kernel-mode, too.

 

quote:I can run XP with 128MB with acceptable performance.

There's some P2/400s with 128MB RAM at my school.  They really drag; the usage is ~150MB with nothing running.  Constant hard drive churning.
XP can run comfortably on a P3/500, provided there's more than 256MB.  My brother runs it with 384, and it's ok.  Could KDE run on that system?  I would assume it would - I tested CPU throttling on that laptop I mentioned, and it lagged at 117Mhz and whatever was the next highest - somewhere around 300.

Still, the idea was  never to run KDE on anything low end.  That was never the idea.  I did once run it (3.1.4) on a P1/166 with 32MB - and it ran better than expected.  I don't know how, but it did.  If you're gonna use KDE, don't run OO.o, use KOffice.  Stick to the toolkits.  Helps a lot with any desktop.

[Refalm]

I use K apps and KDE mostly on Slackware, so I don't really mind.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What?

[ October 22, 2004: Message edited by: Refalm / BOB ]

[insomnia]

...also,
dropping GNOME does not mean dropping GTK.
As long as they(Pat and co) keep all GTK libs, you can still run any GNOME app in any desk.

[skyman8081]

what is so hard about compiling GNOME.  is:

Code: [Select]

so hard?

oh... wait... you freaks use Slack?  savages.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by sauron.game-host.org:
what is so hard about compiling GNOME.  is:

Code: [Select]

so hard?

oh... wait... you freaks use Slack?  savages.[/b]

http://emerde.freaknet.org/