I suppose I am just protective of KDE about misleading and inaccurate statements. From a systems administrator's point of view, yes--if you don't want to change to Caldera, it would be more practical to just use ICEwm over the default configuration of RH, SuSE, or Mandrake's KDE or GNOME.
However, it is misleading and doing injustice to KDE, to write an article comparing "ICEwm" versus "KDE" performance--apples and oranges. Or referring to KDE's bloat, when what you are seeing is likely Red Hat's or Mandrake's bloat. KDE itself is finely tuned for efficiency and low memory usage. Those same loads of generally unneeded pieces of code would not run half as quickly if it were not for KDE. It is very important to correct misleading presumptions made by authors of articles in the media. If the context is given that its two approaches for an administrator, versus a comparison of two technologies that are apples and oranges (in the broader context), then this article would be much improved in quality for all. It would not mislead and cause more misunderstanding of how UNIX GUIs are put together. This inaccuracy (or missing context) was not earth shattering by any means, but to some--especially programmers such as myself--it really is a critical point. Frankly, I think we need a script that strips out and refined the KDE and GNOME systems for LTSP or light desktop use. I may likely work on such a thing in the coming months as this is an issue that related directly to my LTSP network. --Matthew On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Jason Bechtel wrote: > Matthew, > > From a scientific viewpoint it naturally makes more sense to compare > the actual "window manager" portions of each system. But why would any > system administrator responsible for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of > corporate Linux desktops take the time to customize KDE so that it runs > faster and consumes fewer resources and doesn't provide too much rope > for the users to hang themselves with just to find that the next release > of KDE changes where all its config files are stored, the organization > of its modules, etc.? Why would the sysadmin change distributions to > Caldera (assuming most are not already using it) to get a decent > preconfigured KDE? IceWM is sitting there waiting to be used > effectively in its "out of the box" configuration on any distribution. > It has all settings in one configuration file. It allows for individual > configuration files *if needed* but doesn't force them on you. It does > provide "desktop manager" type features (toolbar, menu, hotkeys) without > actually allowing users to manage (alter) the desktop themselves. You > can always give them this ability with add-on utilities and personal > configuration files. > > http://www.icewm.org/index.php?page=utilities > > Don't get me wrong. Your point is absolutely correct. KWM and IceWM > are probably very comparable in their speed and their ability to put > decorations and controls on windows and to place them sensibly on the > screen. But no one runs just KWM. The point that myself and some > others are making is that the reality of the situation (what matters) is > what users and administrators actually do with the software. And in my > opinion, I would rather install a fast simple system that doesn't > overload my server and then add functionality as needed. > > I don't think anyone is blaming KWM for KDE's bloat. They're just part > of the same package. > > Jason > > PS: XFce 3.8.14 is out <http://www.xfce.org/>. > > > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:48:13 -0800 (PST) > > From: mslicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Michael H. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Well then if you can compare Windows Managers (WMs) to desktop systems > > then why not compare KDEwm to ICEwm? > > > > Let me tell you something, without the underlying desktop componant > > architecture (and applications that use it), you will use vastly more > > system resources as you add simultaneous users and applications. > > > > KDE and GNOME tend to be slow on most major distrobutions because the > > distrobutions are configuring them in a very heavy manner. The same > > number of things configured without a desktop system would be completely > > unthinkable in terms of performance. Try Caldera's 3.1 desktop to > > illustrate how fast KDE can be, if better refined. Red Hat, Mandrake, and > > SuSE stuff as much flashy garbage in their distrobutions as they can so > > they can make money on CD sales.....everyone upgrading to see all the new > > things. > > > > Caldera's focus is on business systems and is therefore the only refined > > distrobution I am aware of. They do not focus of stuffing as much on a CD > > as possible and quick upgrades for CD sales.. Unfortunately, their model > > isn't as profitable in the short run. > > > > Most impression is, probably a lot of you who are advocating ICEwm as a > > "replacement" for KDE or GNOME are actually using both desktop systems and > > not realizing it. You can get similar performance just by optimizing all > > the stuff that gets loaded with you default desktops. The KWM (KDE's > > default Window Manager) by itself is in fact very fast, I'd even think it > > might be faster than ICEwm. > > > > Or, try replacing KWM with ICEwm and then see if KDE runs any faster or > > slower? > > > > What I'm saying is, you are blaming the wrong thing for you desktop's slow > > performance. I gaurantee it. > > > > --Matthew > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss > For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net > _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
