Re: Pros/Cons Kde vs Gnome?
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 18:14, CaT wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > s. keeling wrote:
> > > I gave up on both of those; they're equally uncontrollable, and far
> > > too fat to leave any room for actual applications to run. ymmv.
> >
> > Could've fooled me.
> >
> > KDE + Squid + Addzapper + other stuff...
> >
> > {grey@teleute:~} free
> > total used free shared buffers cached
> > Mem: 775556 767612 7944 0 131368 392300
> > -/+ buffers/cache: 243944 531612
> > Swap: 655344 26600 628744
> >
> > 531Mb's not enough? Hmph.
>
> It's more of a case of 'Isn't 240Mb (or 200 cos of squid) a bit much for
> a pretty desktop?' ;)
It's always real hard to measure actual memory usage of an app. This
240MB is presumably actually the memory taken by the kernel plus disk
cache + all sorts of other stuff too, like SSH servers.
But assuming all 240MB are used by the desktop, thats what- US$50?
I'm willing to pay that for the chance to run a pretty desktop for the
lifetime of that PC. And I live in a country where the US$ is about
twice that value in real terms.
Of course some people live places where that *is* an unacceptable amount
of money. So it's good that they have options, like XFce or others [see
the RULE project for details on running a truly "light" linux
install...].
Regards,
Simon
Reply to: