2009/2/17 Huan Truong <huantnh at gmail.com>:
>> And one more thing, why the hell KDE 4.2 has to install mysqld
>> so it can run akonandi,
>
> That is also something that bugs me a little bit, but I'd say I don't
> care as long as it works. It doesn't slow down my computer, it doesn't
> eat even 1% of my HDD space, I meant it is pretty insignificant to me.
>
>> KDE 4.2 alone consume 480MBs RAM (that is 4
>> times more than vanilla XP and Xfce), did I do something wrong here? I
>> heard it is pretty light (someone even said it is lighter than xfce).
>
> I know one of the dilemmas that tech people have is that one
> (OS/WM/whatever) needs to be as lean as possible, but as long as large
> != slow, why should I care? Why do I have to go with something that is
> like, 1/10 of the size of the other but still lags? I don't care if
> the OS (Vista)/window manager... eats a lot of memory space, as long
> as it doesn't slow down the computer. I have like, 2GBs of RAM, and it
> will be a waste if I don't use them all. Vista called it superfetch or
> something fancy like that, and I think it is a pretty good idea.
>
> I'd say I will trade size to functionality anytime, in terms of
> everyday computing.
I agree that it is pretty easy to buy a computer with a lot of ram
cheaply these days, I still don't want the OS to have too many things
that I might never use it, I haven't used KDE long enough to say what
is bloated or not, but let talk about another case, Vista. One of the
reason that Vista has a bad name is that it consume quite a lot of
HDD, most of them is to store multi version of a dll at the same time
(to avoid 'dll hell'), it alone consumes 6GBs of HDD, and you can't
clean it, it can only get bloater over time! People say that Windows 7
is a much better OS than Vista, actually it is Vista with all the
craps turned off.
One more important reason, I am using a laptop, I only want programs
that are essential to me to run, and they shouldn't consume too much
power :)
--
:(){ :|:& };:
