9 Aug
2012
9 Aug
'12
12:43 p.m.
On 08/09/2012 12:15 AM, Thijs van severen wrote:
2012/8/9 Dan MacDonald <allcoms(a)gmail.com
<mailto:allcoms@gmail.com>>
I certainly prefer XFCE to GNOME 3 but XFCE still has a few rough
edges and bugs and Thunar is no longer the lightweight app it once
claimed to be. I use rox filer on my Pandaboard as it has a comparable
feature to Thunar but loads almost instantly compared to the 20s or so
I can be waiting for Thunar to get its act together (this is running
off a SSD via USB2). I can load dolphin in the same time it takes to
load Thunar under fluxbox.
wow GNOME3 takes another hit ...
seems like XFCE is getting bigger all the time
Compared to KDE4/GNOME3, LXDE, XFCE are still dwarves. Both of them take
more than Fluxbox. On the other hand, they DO more than Fluxbox. And
KDE4 (at least) does a lot more than LXDE or XFCE even attempt to do.
If I do one of my panorama projects (programmatically generating control
points for 6MP images at full size) on my laptop, I have to boot to a
terminal (no X at all) and run from the command line because it takes
~2GB memory to process a single image, and running X takes enough memory
that swapping makes the process take hours ...
isn't it also the default for ubuntu studio ?
What does Ubuntu Studio use now? Haven't looked at it for awhile.
Regular Ubuntu uses their own Unity desktop. One flavor of it uses 3D.
The other is Unity 2D, which is supposed to be less resource intensive
than the 3D version. In my experience with Unity (on my wife's netbook),
it has compatibility issues with many other programs courtesy of its
attempt to force applications to share a single menu bar (vs each
application having its own menu bar in its own window).
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/