Huan Truong a ?crit : > I don't think that is the Microsoft way of thinking, I was talking about giving no other choice but buying new hardware. That's the Microsoft way, for sure. With GNU/Linux you have multiple options, and some cheap/light ones among them. Is there a light version of Vista somewhere?
> And nowadays Ubuntu requires at least 256 MB to run on, and 512 MB is > recommended. > Yep, but I never said Ubuntu was the lightest of all GNU/Linux distro? ;-) And still 384 MB (the recommended value for Ubuntu 8.04, and Kubuntu 8.10 only claiming 256 MB) is less than the 512 MB minimum requirement for Vista "Capable" (without all graphic tricks) and less than half the 1 GB minimum requirement for Vista "Premium Ready" (source: WikiPedia) !! > So I would say the point is that the OS (for the masses) in general should > use and should use efficiently whatever an average Joe has, and not what a > grandma has - and yeah, you can make a distro for grandmas, > I was not talking about grandmas PCs but real actual current PCs in Vi?t Nam schools and universities instead? > but a distro like Ubuntu or a wm like KDE doesn't *nessearily* have to run on > grandmas' PCs. And in reality, they didn't do that. Yep ! And that's exactly the point! They don't aim at being light? And I never said that GNOME was better than KDE on that point! I've just said that GNOME is stable and KDE is not. And for me "usable" (or "functional") requires "stable" in the first place. > I also think that in general, accelerate stuff by using powerful hardware is > a 'more efficient' idea than trying to twist your code to bits to speed > things up. I strongly disagree on that: here you are encouraging bad code quality to get more "productivity" (in the bad, commercial, sense of this term). > Machines are cheap, manpower (to optimize stuff to bits) is expensive. Here you are limiting the notions of cheap/expensive to money? Modern machines are more and more power consuming, which means using more and more energy and, at the end, natural resources. So, in the end, you get higher and higher cost? Which we could reduce by _thinking_ a bit more instead of trying to do everything faster, more powerful, more shiny, and more everything else? > You can make your program really lean, and run really fast by coding it in > assembly but in general the idea is is worse than using something more > advanced to do it faster and scarify a little bit of performance. > I'm not talking about getting back on our knowledges and enhancements. I'm talking about enhancing them. Now people are starting to think about enhancing code quality (e.g. by first enhancing the compilers, or by making programs more parallel/multi-processors aware) instead of counting on enhanced processor power => that's the right way! It's time to review Firefox, it's time to review GNOME & KDE, it's time to review OpenOffice.org? And hopefully it has begun! :) -- Jean Christophe "????" ANDR? ? ? ? Responsable technique r?gional Bureau Asie-Pacifique (BAP) ? ? ? http://www.asie-pacifique.auf.org/ Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (AuF) ? ? ? http://www.auf.org/ Adresse postale : AUF, 21 L? Th?nh T?ng, T.T. Ho?n Ki?m, H? N?i, Vi?t Nam T?l. : +84 4 9331108 ? Fax : +84 4 8247383 ? Cellul. : +84 91 3248747 ? Note personnelle: merci d'?viter de m'envoyer des fichiers PowerPoint ? ? ou Word, cf http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.fr.html ? -------------- section suivante -------------- Une pi?ce jointe non texte a ?t? nettoy?e... Nom: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Taille: 260 octets Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url: http://lists.hanoilug.org/pipermail/hanoilug/attachments/20090218/0185b4e1/attachment.pgp
