On Wednesday 12 March 2003 19:00, Brian Nelson wrote: > Frank Van Damme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Filled it in with all pleasure, and, since you're asking my opinion > > anyway, the useability of kde has little to do with menu structures of > > user-friendlyness, at which it is way ahead of all the others. It has > > more to do with kde's major disease: obesity. I don't know if this has to > > do with c++, gcc, qt or kde, but there's room for improvement there. To > > the majority of students I know, Kde has not become a viable alternative > > to their revamped dos shell because of it. You know it would be REALLY > > impressive if I could demonstrate kde on a p100 with just 32 megs ram! > > Everyone would just JUMP on Debian ;-) > > Then show them a light window manager, like wmaker or blackbox (and > friends). Having KDE be usable on extremely low-end hardware just isn't > a design goal of KDE.
I get your meaning, and this is often answered in "window manager jihads", but actually isn't my point. First, any desktop user will want to use kde apps. I mean that as a compliment :-) . So you'll inevitable load and use qt and kde libraries. Second, It may not be the design goal to run on the lowest end stuff (like a system built out of Linux, Dietlibc, TinyX and twm or something :-) ), but I hope it isn't the goal of the kde project to become as big as Windows Xp or something (exageration for the sake of demonstration). Third, (<nitpicking>) the machine I named is low-end by todays standards, but by no means "extremely" low-end. It would be like a space shuttle ride for the majority of the worlds population. So I find the most important thing that KDE can focus on, snappyness and system requirements. And stability off course. -- Frank Van Damme http://www.openstandaarden.be
