On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 16:22, Bryan Murdock wrote: > I would buy this if the supposed economy car of Windows was cheaper and > Linux was spilling more toxic fumes into the atmosphere, but I'm afraid > that isn't true. Hmm, in fact it's quite the opposite in both cases > (ok, maybe windows doesn't really produce toxic fumes). I don't > understand these "it's too bloated" arguments against any software. So > what? What's the trade off? Software doesn't produce any toxic waste, > noxious gasses, or anything like that. Greenpeace isn't going to knock > at your door because of a large memory footprint, or unused features. > What's the big deal? I guess that's why I'm an emacs lover when others > aren't.
Wow. You have /way/ more RAM than I do. Bloat leads to crawl. It's that simple. I use Ximian Gnome at home now. I love it, it looks beautiful. Sad thing is Rebecca asked me the other day, "Is Linux slower than Windows?" And I had to explain that the kernel is faster, but X and Gnome are, in fact, slower. Sad but true. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
