> Whyever not? As you say yourself in another comment, the less hardware
resources the DE uses, the more of them are available to run applications.
Because GNOME is easier to use than LXDE. (I can't comment specifically on
Englightenment.) Maximum performance isn't everything.
> These are the facts, and no amount of repeating your claim that Fallback is
"unusually lightweight" (relative to what? KDE? Unity?) changes them.
Unusually lightweight for the main DE choice. Let's run through some popular
distros:
Debian - GNOME Shell
Ubuntu - Unity
Mint - Cinnamon
Noticing a trend? All of these are heavier than GNOME Flashback.
> Now I think you are intentionally misinterpreting my comments. What I was
referring to as "patronising" was calling my perfectly functional computer a
"potato" because it doesn't run GNOME Fallback well.
My mom has some kind of custom computer with a Pentium 4 CPU and some kind of
ATI integrated GPU (so, no hardware acceleration). The only thing it has
going for it is the RAM. I think it has 2 GB, though it might be 1 GB; I'm
not entirely sure. It has absolutely no problem running GNOME Flashback.
So... yes, I think it's perfectly accurate to refer to a computer that can't
handle GNOME Flashback as a "potato". But seriously, are you really taking
that remark so personally? It's not an insult or attack. It's just a metaphor
to describe how incredibly low your computer's specs are.
> As for your model conversation, all that wasted time and frustration for
that user, especially if they're new to GNU/Linux, could be avoided by making
"Mini" the default
You're talking about "wasted time and frustration" for an extremely small
portion of the population, and exchanging a solution to that for frustration
of everyone else by making a DE that can't do anything advanced and/or is
difficult to use the default. This is not a useful strategy for attracting
new users. If you want to be a power user and make your system as lightweight
as possible, use Parabola or Dragora.
