On the contrary to all said on this thread, I must admit that using KDE with 
512 MB is quite sane. I am using this setup on a machine running Etch. kmail 
running for several weeks, same as akregator, Firefox 2 running on and off, 
konsole is usually open. 

The machine is very responsive a hour after I start using it every day (stupid 
debian updates take 20 minutes every other day, sometimes even 40 if I do not 
update several days). Uptime is ~60 days using a stock kernel (I actually 
took a kernel.org source and compiled it into *.deb, quite cool).

I am also running OpenSUSE 10.1 on a very broken system (PS/2 connections does 
not work, and 2nd IDE is completely dead), this is why I don't have high 
uptimes on that machine. However, this machine has 512mb of memory, which 
serves me to run Firefox2, Mozilla, a full KDE desktop and all other goddies 
(I tried even Beryl, which I just did not like, I went back to kwin). I even 
run 2 X sessions on the same time: the stock SuSE desktop and the stock KDE 
3.x (or 4.X) compiled from sources. Quite frankly, it works pretty good. I 
assume more patient is needed, but hey, nothing comes for free.

Anyone else running KDE and feeling the same as me? I understand that gnome is 
not a pretty sight, but I would like to know what other people think of 
KDE :)


ביום שלישי 16 ינואר 2007, 16:10, נכתב על ידי Nadav Har'El:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007, Oded Arbel wrote about "Re: Why are GNOME applications 
(and applets) take so much [EMAIL PROTECTED] memory ?":
> > I usually see a problem after about a week of usage - after a reboot it
> > behaves itself for a few days. I rebooted this morning, and now Evo is
> > down to 400MB.
>
> With the mad race to get better and better hardware, it seems that people
> forgot how to write efficient software. One of the lost arts is preventing
> memory leaks.
>
> There are two kind of "memory-leak"-like problems in modern software:
>
> 1. Real memory leaks, where the program grows, and grows, and grows, the
>    longer it runs.
>
> 2. The program not being able to shrink its memory use, and therefore each
>    long-running program always takes the maximum amount of memory it needed
>    up until now.
>    (Every mathematician learned that sum(max(...)) > max(sum(...)), which
>    is why this is such a serious problem when you're running many
> programs).
>
> I can, if I try very hard, understand why some clock applet should take 10
> MB of memory (because it uses inefficient overly-general libraries, because
> it has translations into 100 different languages loaded into memory, or who
> knows what). What I can't understand is when the memory of such a program
> grows over time, forcing you to reboot every week (like you said).
>
> About a year ago, I discovered a memory leak in my favorite window manager,
> ctwm: I noticed that after several months (!) of continuous use, it used up
> a few megabytes more than it used initially. I bit of debugging (with a
> memory leak-finding tool that I wrote) turned out that ctwm leaked a few
> bytes of memory for every new window opened. After you open tens of
> thousands of windows over a few months, this adds up to a few megabytes. I
> reported the bug, and it was fixed.
>
> Contrast this to more "modern" software, which leaks megabytes *every day*
> (if not every hour), and nobody is even trying to do anything about it...
>
> Alas...

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to