Where are the goals of XFCE.
mailinglists at vinnl.nl
Mon Jul 14 18:20:04 CEST 2008
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/13 Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>:
> > All this "lightweight desktop" stuff is pretty stupid anyways. In case
> > you didn't notice, it's 2008, and you will have a hard time buying a new
> > machine with less than 512MiB of RAM. Performance isn't an issue either
> > with todays CPU processing power. Instead, it'd be nice if people would
> > start to improve the user experience by - for example - reducing the
> > latency of the desktop (i.e. make clever use of XCB instead of Xlib to
> > avoid blocking on round trips to the Xserver) or making the Gnome people
> > actually accept Glib patches to reduce unnecessary overhead in the
> > object and signal handling. Wrt. latency there's also a lot of stuff
> > that could be improved in the kernel.
> I hope I'm not intruding into the discussion, but talking lightweight is
> still not stupid. We have some old computers from where I work (this
> is a non-profit and it's very hard to get new computers even with all
> the talk about replacing the old equipment) that we will no longer
> upgrade because it is already too slow to run the old software, let
> alone the new. Lightweight certainly still is useful and will still be
> useful in the next few years.
Of course talking light-weightness is not stupid. However, it is madness to
assume that, because Xfce ran on old computers five years ago, Xfce should
still run on those same computers today even though they've become five
years older. "Old computers" of today can handle more than "old computers"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xfce