Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:04:24PM -0800, Kok, Auke wrote: >> Andreas, please take your rants somewhere else. This is not a discussion >> forum on >> how bad X or Y is, nor is it a place to dump grief. > > Sorry, I've had way too many software-related things fail on me (and > rest assured: not only me!) during the last two weeks to keep any > sizeable tolerance level currently. > (e.g. some assorted 5 or 6 different annoying CUPS failures - leaving me > almost entirely printing-capability-less until I managed to figure out > one golden combo - and 4 to 5 different annoying kernel failures > and regressions). > >> I know for a fact that the Xfce team is extremely responsive to bugreports of >> substance, and have worked closely with them to improve things where >> possible. > > Well, then they might be better than icewm (coincidentally that's the icewm > I mentioned before, hohumm...) which I provided a wakeup patch tracker item > for which never received any response. > AFAIR the initial bloat situation of icewm was a lot better than with xfce > anyway, though...
Because they are two incomparable entities. Xfce is a Desktop Environment. Icewm is a (fancy) window manager. If you have issues with the power consumption of either of them and need help getting the issue looked at by the right people we can maybe help. I encourage you to take some time to dig in the Xfce bugzilla and see if any of the issues there need to be looked at more deeply, which is something that I myself even can do for you. All I would need is a link to a bugreport to start, for instance. Cheers, Auke _______________________________________________ Power mailing list [email protected] http://www.bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power
