TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [TCLUG:4588] Gnome
I realize that KDE is still not fast, and I understand that other wm's are
faster and that the fastest performance solution is not to run X at all ;-)
but I don't think that twm could be considered nearly as "usable" by a
newbie, which is who this system is supposedly for.
It may suit your needs just fine, but I firmly believe that KDE and gnome
are far more than just "eye candy". A window manager itself, for the most
part, is eye candy. But KDE/gnome are much more than window managers. They
are "desktop environments" that may or may not include a window manager. I
believe that features like drag-n-drop, consistent menus, scroll-bars, etc,
all make a GUI much more easy to use for non-computer-geeks. Even as a
computer-geek, I find that my productivity is greater with them. I think
that, if Apple got one thing right, it's that the "average" user shouldn't
have to touch a command line. This means that I shouldn't have to manually
edit a 20-screen text file just to change my background color or set a
screensaver, as you do in twm, fvwm, etc. I shouldn't have to type anything
to copy a file from one place to another, or to add an icon to my program
launcher.
I'm not knocking twm or other wm's. Each has some great advantages, such as
speed. If you like it, cool. But I can say that, as someone who has only
been using Linux for a couple years (not professionally, either) something
like KDE or gnome is an absolutely NECESSARY thing to make Linux attractive
to the "home" or "average" user. They are MUCH more than eye candy. Whether
or not Linux *should* be attractive to the average person...well, that is a
whole different discussion!
Of course, all IMHO!
Neal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Siegfried [mailto:sos@skypoint.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 2:29 PM
> To: tclug-list@listserv.real-time.com
> Subject: Re: [TCLUG:4588] Gnome
>
>
>
> Neil,
>
> Even "~80 seconds" for a KDE "startx" on a P120 is nothing to
> brag about.
>
> I normally run twm on my P100, where 7 xterms, 4 copies of
> coolmail (I use
> procmail), a clock, pretty root "wallpaper" (via xloadimage),
> xscreensaver
> and a pop-up xterm with fortune in it only takes 16 seconds
> (and that's
> when I timed it in the second virtual display, so I wouldn't
> loose my trn
> thread).
>
> Not to be a knuckle-dragger or anything, but is the extra
> eye-candy you get
> with stuff like KDE or Gnome worth what you have to pay in
> extra paging and
> slow performance? I don't think so.
>
> Good, fast, cheap... pick any two'idly,
>
> -S
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> /| | Ziggy's Law: |
> \'o.O' | You can add titanium wheels to | Steve Siegfried
> =(___)= | the ox-cart of technology, but | sos@skypoint.com
> U | it's _still_ gonna be an ox-cart. |
> ==============================================================
> ==============
>
> Neal Tovsen wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to start a KDE vs. gnome battle (PLEASE,
> don't!), but in the
> > interest of your friend, you might try KDE. I'm running KDE
> on a P-120 on
> > the desk behind me with 16Mb of RAM with no problems. Just
> timed it with my
> > watch: ~80 seconds from "startx" to full desktop with a
> kterm, though when
> > you start running a big app like Netscape, it starts
> disk-swapping a lot. My
> > 120 with 48Mb is a little faster with almost no disk
> swapping, and my
> > K6-2/350 with 128Mb...well, you get the picture!
> >
> > It's still not a speed-demon, but probably a LOT better
> than the trouble
> > you're having. It has also been quite stable, with no
> KDE-related crashes
> > since 1.0 came out. Our previous discussion also indicates
> that you can
> > still have gnome/GTK libs installed to run those apps too.
> I have to say I'm
> > reasonably impressed with most of the K apps. I haven't
> found anything SUPER
> > cool, but the basics are very solid and compatible. It's
> also super-friendly
> > for people with Win95 experience (they ripped it off), and
> I even just read
> > an article where (*gasp*) a Mac user found it acceptable!
> Over-all, it isn't
> > the coolest or most fashionable thing like Enlightenment on
> gnome, but it's
> > very solid and usable. That's probably more important for a
> newbie who wants
> > something simple to setup/use.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yaron [mailto:jethro@yaron.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 4:14 PM
> > > To: tclug-list@listserv.real-time.com
> > > Subject: Re: [TCLUG:4588] Gnome
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Michael Hicks wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately, Gnome isn't the greatest speed demon on
> the planet.. I
> > > > think the 1.0 release takes longer to start than some
> other recent
> > > > versions, but I might just be imagining things..
> > >
> > > Not the fasters is an understatement.
> > >
> > > The reason I'm looking at it is I've got to setup Linux
> for a friend who
> > > lives kinda far away (Chicago), and I'm trying to make it
> as simple as
> > > possible for her... waiting over 2 minutes for Gnome to
> start is not a
> > > good thing.
> > >
> > > > It helps to have plenty of memory (I have 64MB, and it
> looks like it's
> > > > getting a bit tight... *sigh*), and a decent speed
> processor (I ran
> > > > Gnome 0.99.x on a P166 without complaints.. Now I have
> an K6-2 333, so
> > > > it's better than it was..
> > >
> > > I've got 128MB, and a K6-2/300, and it took 2 minutes,
> during which the
> > > CPU was not heavily loaded, and memory consumption did
> not go up wildly.
> > > It was running and releasing things.. I'll look at it
> again when I get
> > > home.
> > >
> > > My friend's got an old Pentium/133. Guess Gnome's not
> going to be working
> > > for her, is it (:
> > >
> > > > Heh.. if that happens, you may want to whack your
> ~/.gnome directory,
> > > > or maybe only some of the files in there.
> > >
> > > Yeah, except I don't know which. I assumed that's where
> Gnome hides all
> > > it's config files, like what's on the panel.
> > >
> > > > Window Maker is not fully Gnome compliant (although I
> think they said
> > > > they were..)
> > >
> > > Yup, they most certainly did.
> > >
> > > > I run Enlightenment, which is definitely improved from
> earlier versions,
> > > > but still has it's problems..
> > >
> > > I remember trying to run Enlightenment on a 486 (:
> Anyway, I'm not really
> > > an E fan.. maybe when they get to a lean, stable version.
> Still, it LOOKS
> > > great.
> > >
> > > > I know that gmc is highly unstable, but I haven't had
> many problems with
> > > > gnome-session. I have heard that gnome-session doesn't
> talk well with
> > > > apps running as root, so if you were just testing as
> root, I'd recommend
> > > > testing as a user.
> > >
> > > The only thing I do as root is compile/install things. I
> don't really know
> > > what gmc is - it crashed while trying to play... uh...
> one of the games, I
> > > forget which. And while moving things around. And when
> the cat sneezed in
> > > the other room...
> > >
> > >
> > > -Yaron
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> > > Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> > Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
>
>