On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 12:34 -0700, Leslie S Satenstein wrote: > So, we also look at the memory consumption in my 1 gig notebook, and > see that 1/3 of it is to support icon presentation.
On my box it is 1563MiB or RAM (`free --mega`), albeit with Evolution, Epiphany, and gnome-terminal open. Memory usage is the natural consequence of desktop effects and polish. > How many clicks on average does it take to find a program whose name > you don't recall? 4/5 if you use the mouse. If you don't know the name, just type in what kind of app or what category it is, e.g. editor->gedit(enter). A good maintainer will ship a .desktop file that contains a set of relevant tags. > And when you change things because you think they are better, it is > not that we are resistant to change, we are resistant to fiddling > because of boredom. Is that what you think the Gnome devs are basing their decisions on? Your status as an "experienced Information Technology specialist." should really tell you otherwise > I suspect, and I am not sure why, but Gnome will be forked, and > something better will arise. It has[0][1][3], if they are better (in your opinion), then use them. If not, then what does that say when three forks of a desktop can't get it right? How did we get on to this anyway? [0] http://mate-desktop.org/ [1] http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/ [3] SolusOS Consort (no project or source code page) -- Marco Scannadinari <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
