bloated vs. lightweight WM's

[Olivier]

Hi

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 19:06, Sami Samhuri wrote:
> You would have had to seen the entire thread [1] to understand what the
> original poster was trying to achieve. The poor guy just wanted to see
> the difference between memory use in different environments for his work
> with all his services and programs open to simulate normal use. He did
> reboot between each test and had the services running on purpose. After
> posting he was inundated with messages telling him why his test were not
> accurate and all sorts of other things similar to what's being said
> here. The difference between a window manager and a desktop environment
> was also pointed out to him. :)

The fact is that these tests are meaningless.

> He was not trying to benchmark the individual environments, rather he
> wanted to know how they stacked up against each other on his machine for
> his own purposes.

Yes, but again, the values are wrong and show nothing (except maybe that
Linux is pretty good at caching data when it has a fairly good amount of
RAM)

> I recommend people here reading the original thread to get the context
> it was in. The guy got enough flak from the Gentoo users. :) Presumably
> because many of us probably use the lightweight DEs and WMs that looked
> so big and bulky in his tests.

The point is not the diffference between a given DE, or a DE and other
WM, or whatever. The point is that the values are wrong.

I'm really not trying to argue in favor of xfce or against any other
WM/DE, I'm just saying that these values are not correct and show
nothing at all.

I really don't see the point of this thread on the xfce list.

Cheers,
-- 
 - Olivier Fourdan - fourdan at xfce.org - http://www.xfce.org -