Re: Why did Skolelinux choose a KDE desktop back in 2001?
Søndag 03 desember 2006 21:11, skrev Andreas Tille:
> I just stumbled about an article here that said "KDE is great"
> but the link to prove this was just telling "Linux is great" in
> my opinion.
Yes. Your right.
The article is desktop neutral, focusing on the +fifty educational
programs pre-installed with k12ltsp.org. The author also gives
credit to the teams of folks writing the many tools and
applications for the KDE desktop:
> I just wanted to correct the subject on the previous mail that
> was not perfectly choosen, IMHO.
My worry is the same as yours. Getting wrong focus on usability, ignite
a flame war, alienating a lot of users. With great powers comes great
responsibilities. One of them is to be humble, and promote a healthy
competition when developing the school desktop.
One of the most important issue is to keep the memory requirement low.
Some Linux distroes don't care. SuSE Novell recommends 512 MB RAM.
With Debian 128 MB RAM is more than enough on a standard desktop with
KDE, GNOME or Xfce. With Debian 3.0 (woody) 128 MB RAM was sufficient
when running backported OpenOffice.org 1.0. Today OpenOffice.org 2.0
and Firefox requires 258 MB RAM to run nicely on Linux. It's the same
same system requirement with Windows 2000/XP 5-6 years ago.
In my book Microsoft deliberately ditched Debian when comparing memory
usage on Linux desktops. Debian is the second biggest Linux distro,
and breaks the commercial/non-commercial rhetoric from Microsoft. My
sources tells that Microsoft don't talk about commercial free GPL-ed
software. Then they must address the reall business issues. By
addressing real business issues stated in GPL, Microsoft has no chance
winning a debate, sale representative says. To characterises Linux as
non-commercial and depenent on Microsoft patents, as they did after the
Novell deal, they can stay in the game.