andrelst wrote: > It's the overall faster *desktop* experience you get with > windows XP compared to Linux.
I haven't done a comparison in a long time, so what I'd like to know is if, on the same machine, do Linux GUI apps (KDE/GNOME/otherwise) really feel more sluggish than Windows XP?
I am extremely satisfied with the speed of the Windoze GUI in XP, there have clearly been improvements.
> I think you are referring "fat" as the eye candy of gnome.
Remember that XP has its own set of eye candy and yet manages to remain responsive. I have to say I have been increasingly impressed with the engineering behind the previously much maligned (and in the past admittedly deservedly so) Windows platform. Heck, I'm so impressed I've found myself learning MS plumbing technologies like COM lately!
I still say use Linux/*nix for server purposes though. And I have a hunch that, with XP Service Pack 2, MS might be up to their old trick of getting you to upgrade to (read: bloating your system with) their newer technologies (.NET Framework) as the cost for getting security patches.
Zak B. Elep wrote:
> Gnome's (and KDE's) bloat is the most noticed 'fat', and I'm leaving > a lot of room for OpenOffice.org's and Moz's blubber too ;P Of course, > there are other indications/sources of 'fat', but the appearance issue > is the most visible of all (and of course, it should be ;)
Part of the reason for Gnome and KDE's fat could be the fact that they are trying to ape Windows' COM/OLE/ActiveX architecture with Bonobo (GNOME) and KCOP (KDE)! Could it be said that MS have had more time to streamline their code? Also, remember that you end up having to install BOTH GNOME and KDE in Linux.
I couldn't make heads or tails out of distributed components 10 years ago when they were first hyped, and am only understanding their implications today (when .NET is now being proposed as a replacement for COM). Apparently, people like Miguel de Icaza as well as the KDE people have been sold on how useful and correct this strategy (binary-compatible components) is as a means of abstraction / system plumbing. And clearly, de Icaza is sold enough on Microsoft's vision of the future to be doing Mono.
My #1 objection to the idea of OOP (borne of experience) is the mechanism of inheritance, and apparently one of the central ideas of COM is to studiously avoid implementation inheritance. COM, of course, still can't avoid being a [EMAIL PROTECTED]@% mess because it is C++-centric... C++, of course, being one [EMAIL PROTECTED]@% mess of a language itself.
One has to remember that while .NET is easier for end users than COM ever was (.NET is obviously very much inspired by the philosophy behind COM), the .NET CLR + VM tandem smells to me like your typical baroque, overengineered MS technology. (Apparently, supergeniuses like Jim Hugunin (Jython, IronPython) seem to have no trouble with it, but just ordinary geniuses like Mark Hammond (Python Win32 extensions) - do.)
-- reply-to: a n d y @ n e t f x p h . c o m -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
