<reply who="Andre Pang" date="Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:19:20 +1100">
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 08:54:37PM +1100, Karl Clements wrote:
>
> > Look at the number of idiot computer users windows and mac has
> > given the world?
>
> Well, look at the idiotic number of mechanics that cars have
> given to the world. I don't know a carborator from a cylinder.
> I reckon I drive alright, although. (People who've been
> passengers in my car, shuddup ;).
this is true, it can just be highly annoying getting a call from someone who can't
work out how to check their email.
> The elite computer user attitude is, like, so yesterday. 99% of
> people use a computer to achieve a goal. Don't let the computer
> get in the way unless absolutely necessary.
>
> > Linux is not intended as a desktop os, sure the desktop has
> > come a long way, but its not there yet.
>
> I was talking in the future context, not the now. I'll switch
> back to the now context for this email, though.
>
> > Most of the user friendly gui's (kde, gnome come to mind) are
> > too resource hungry to to be any good, and the XF86 is very
> > inefficient.
>
> They're no more resource-hungry than, say, Windows 2000.
2k ran better on this than slack8 with kde, although that was easy fixed with a change
of wm
> I'll
> take a flying bet my 1GHz Linux box at work runs just as fast as
> Win{XP,98,2K} would. Many people run Linux as a minimalist
> server on old hardware, than start complaining that it's slow
> when they try to use GNOME/KDE. Gee, big whoop, it's not really
> much slower than Windows is on the same hardware either.
see above
> > For linux to gain a larger market share X needs to be reworked
> > so its more efficient and someone needs to put together a user
> > friendly wm that doesn't chew up all your resources.
>
> See above. And don't generalise things and start saying that X
> is inefficient. I'm sure all the minimalists who run twm and
> xterms will disagree with you :).
X is good, but it could be better look at the size of it its bloated
> > I can run 2k quite happily on my 300, slack8 with kde on my 300
> > however is slow as all hell. This is why I dropped kde. --
>
> What were you doing on KDE that was so much slower? KMail was
> slow? Konqueror? I don't believe that KDE is that much slower
> than Win2K given the same hardware (or whether it's slower at
> all).
Konqueror was slower to start than ie, kmail well I ditched that after importing my
old oe mail because it was slow as well, my system was sitting at roughly 75% memory
usage with kde, it now sits alot lower with fluxbox, Konqueror as a file browser was
painful.
In addition to the previously mentioned problems i haven't found a decent browser for
X as yet, i compiled mozilla it didn't install to where i told it to, i compiled
skipstone once it was installed it didn't run at all (gtkmozembed error) opera was
dodgey, netscape was hella slow.
the fact that it takes about half as much time to open ie on a 250mhz machine than it
does mozilla on a 300 with more ram leads me to think there is room for improvement.
--
Karl Clements
"Everyone is stupid, its just the degree that varies"
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
