Re: KDE
Montreal Tue Mar 9 23:07:21 1999
Phillip R. Jaenke <prj@nls.net> wrote:
> them; somebody else did. Raw.. don't ask. That's how I feel after having
> to show my boss KDE. On a machine with 32M. (FYI: KDE eats about, oh,
> 15-20M. And that's just kwm.) If the agony of the total *incompetency* in
If KWM eats 15-20M on your system, then something must really be
fscked up there.
> some of the KDE 1.1 source packages wasn't enough, the intolerable
The .debs should probably preserve namespace by shoving the KDE stuff
somewhere like $KDEDIR (/usr/kde/?) instead of all over the place
(/var/spool/??? please). Not to mention, the other unsupported KDE
applications expect a $KDEDIR. I actually think KDE should drop .debs
altogether. I went straight to tar.gz and I'm much better off.
The GNOME debs are worse and take up /etc/sound, /etc/CORBA,
/etc/paper.config, /etc/mime-magic, /usr/bin/panel and more instead of
something doing something sensible like shoving config files in
/etc/gnome/* and naming GNOME panel /usr/bin/X11/gpanel.
> slowness was more than enough. P90, 32M, IDE, onboard Trio64V2. Not
> exactly optimal KDE machine, aye? ;P
P100, 32M, IDE, ATI Mach 64. Sorry, no intolerable slowness here.
-N.
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KDE
- From: "Phillip R. Jaenke" <prj@nls.net>
- References:
- Re: KDE
- From: Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
- Re: KDE
- From: "Phillip R. Jaenke" <prj@nls.net>