Slashdot Mirror
KDE Developer Sirtaj Singh Kang Interviewed
highwaytohell writes "Sirtaj Singh Kang is a KDE developer and an official spokesman for KDE in Australia. In this interview conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald he talks about how the KDE project manages to maintain its hierarchy, where he sees KDE in the future, Linux portability issues and the relationship between Trolltech and KDE developers. The article gives a good insight into how maintainers and developers work to maintain one of the more popular window managers for Linux. Certainly worth a read."
Does anybody know if NetBSD has been ported to this yet?
From the article:
/. then...
"There are always people who would rather talk about it than actually help with development."
So we can take it he reads
graspee
Athlon Thunderbird 850mhz
512mb ram
Matrox G400 video card
Up to half a dozon clicks to open a folder because KDE is so slow and bloated.
I've got no desire to troll, but I know you'll mod this as such.
I just don't have will to upgrade my box every 8 months to the latest whiz-bang equipment just to have KDE (or Gnome for that matter) running at a speed faster than Windows ME on a Pentium. Improving speed and stability are far more important than adding features at this time - I think this needs to be realised.
I think for developers with 2gb of ram and the latest 533mhz system bus, it's easy to forget that all this fun-to-make eye-candy is not what users with sub $3,000 computers want. I'm not sure why I'm writing this. I'm just disillusioned with the direction I've seen Linux's desktop usability efforts go.
The trouble with trying to demand that KDE and Gnome be as fast as Windows (or Mac, or Atheos for that matter) is that those window managers are built on top of X Windows whereas the GWE subsystem of Windows is built directly into the kernel.
This means higher overhead for GUI work on those X-based windows managers because of the extra library calls and extra complexity that X offers. There is a lot to be said for the stuff that is in X, but much of it is simply not needed by most desktop users (remote windowing, as the most grievous example).
Its confusing enough for new users and irritating to everyone else. Why do we need the K's and the gears to proclaim "We own your computer!" Thats what Microsoft does and is one reason I have turned away. Let us brand our own computers, or better yet, leave the system unbranded. They are only tools, after all.
To me, KDE isn't a software development project but rather, a parade. They see how Apple and Microsoft like to throw parties and festivals for their releases, all in the name of marketing, and KDE sees this and gets the awful notion that this is an area they need to compete in. That marketing somehow matters to them. From this they get strange ideas that its wrong to change this branding, that every computer the software gets installed on is thiers.
I like the system for some parts, and not so for others: but I use it and appreciate it for the freedom it grants me. So my appreciations is noted. De-brand the desktop to make for a more useful system.
That's a good point, and it's well known.
It's damn near time someone decided to scrap X and write KDE directly on top of the kernel.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
go into your XF86Config in /etc/X11 and change the order of the resolutions under screen section, making sure to change it for the correct Display Depth, the resolution on the left is the one used by X as the default, just save that then restart X, you should be all set :P
Sooo... why was Windows 3.1 so much faster on a 486, yet it ran on top of DOS?!
What distro are you using? On Red Hat 8.0, to change resolution, go to the red hat in the corner, click it, go to System Settings, then Display. Give your root password, and change it to 800x600 (or your desired resolution)
Not sure about other distros/versions
KarateBob
That may be so, but it doesn't excuse the relatively poor stability + massive ram usage which has appeared in KDE in recent times.
Oh, and 3.1 isn't out quite yet - RC2 comes out tommrrow. It should be released in the next couple weeks.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
No it doesn't. KDE is not stable enough. I have never had Windows Explorer.exe crash as much as KDE, and I know I'm not alone. Much of KDE's speed problems come from using an HTML rederer - this is a performance disaster, especially on X Windows.
We have problems making cut/paste work between applications when they should simply work. We have problems making distros work with eachother, with rpm built for multiple distros when they shouldn't need to be, they should be standardised. Now you want to fork the linux kernel! Atleast on the most basic kernel level, let us pick something and keep it throught thick and thin!
I'v been using Qt since 1996, and I think it is the best written set of GUI classes out there. I also think C++ is the best compromise between performance and abstraction for graphical user interfaces. That does not mean there aren't some problems, however...
Does anyone else think that Qt should forward declare more classes than it does? The compilation time of Qt projects has went up five fold since Qt 1.x due to excessive of C++ templates. Sure there are ways to cope with it: distcc, ccache - but this is not addressing the primary problem - C++ compiles are too bloody slow and getting slower all the time.
On another topic, who else thinks C++0x should make provisions to forward declare templatized class instances? Including all these template definitions in every header file is complete death for compilation time: #include <string>, for example. Precompiled headers help a little, but are easily corrupted and the cause of many bad builds.
As they say on the Mono website :
"The Common Language Infrastructure platform is similar to the goals we had in GNOME of giving language independence to programmers. It is more mature, documented, larger in scope, and has a consistent design."
With Mono Gnome is in a much better position to compete with KDE, although in the end it will probably mean that most of what we presently call Gnome and its "legacy" APIs will become deprecated and finally integrated with Mono. But hell, we will still call it Gnome.
I like KDE3 better than KDE2, because when I swap from a console, it doesn't throw my mouse into the top right corner, but it's so bloated.
Even worse, there are now way too many configuration utilities...I can't keep them straight. Instead of adding features and bloat to make things easier for stupid Windows users, how about ganging together and documenting how I can to Task X from a console? Better documentation means that you don't have to dumb down the product, you just end up with smarter users.
Well, welcome to the world of *bsd.
Having separate userlands and kernels is a mess, and only linux is willing to deal with it. The rest of the unix world seems to realize that the kernel maintainers should also handle the basic userland applications.
That said, it's still time for someone to build a new UI server that isn't X. X is big, and X is nice for serving to a bunch of terminals, but it's a mess for desktop machines.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Repeat, KDE is no window manager but a desktop environment - kwin is the window manager.
And why did they interview them? He has nothing new to say likely due to that he is not much involved in today's KDE development (3 CVS commits until today this year). The second representive stepped back from the interview because of low involvement but with 7 CVS commits this year he has even contributed more lately.
You calling me a hoe?
I've kind of been out of the loop for a while, since when are Gnome and KDE window managers? Last time I used either, they didn't control placement of windows and such. Though I do remember Gnome doing backgrounds.
> I haven't been keeping up to date but have the gnome ppl fallen behind? I think so. Look at http://www.gnome.org/start/2.1/ to see the few disappointing new features of Gnome 2.2. Ok, the page states it's not complete yet but there will be nothing exciting added since Gnome 2.2 is now in feature freeze. Hell, even with their GEP procedure they failed to decide on and implement a new file-selector which Gnome people promised for Gnome 2.2 since the Gnome 2.0 release.
X is actually faster than the GDI for most things. Don't believe me? Benchmark it yourself? I've benchmarked it before, and for stuff like line drawing or bitmap blitting, X stands up well even to DirectX. The main problem is that the toolkits (ahem, Qt) don't really use X all that well. That said, a lot of problem is due to the fact that a properly fast KDE/GNOME desktop needs a lot of proper configuration. My KDE 3.1 desktop, for example, is as fast as WinXP for most things (expect app startup speed, but glibc 2.3 and prelinking should fix that) but it required some custom compiling and renice tricks to get it that way.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"X is actually faster than the GDI for most things. "
Bullshit. Both of them result in a call to graphic driver which , generally, is better optimized on Windows.
"The main problem is that the toolkits (ahem, Qt) don't really use X all that well."
They use it the way it was intended.
Every fucking Qt call of say QPainter maps almost directly to Xlib function.
What else would you have them to do ?
X11 performs well on my Maxine, a 25Mhz R3000 processor. It's not the CPU that makes the performance, it's the video card and how well written the driver is.
Most XFree86 drivers aren't as good as they could be. But that's obvious to most people.
If you haven't noticed the trend in computer science, it's that we trade performance for managability. C over assembler, C++ over C, Java over C++, etc. I'd rather have more logical overhead that freeping creaturism on the part of my X server.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Really? Installing KDE somehow made windows stop crashing? That is amazing.
Why not fork?
KDE and Gnome come with their own window managers, kwin and metacity/sawfish respectively.
hey that worked, thanks!
:)
any idea on how to kill the transparent menus in kde?
now to put my 33.6 modem in since i only have a lucent 56k winmodem.. or i could just by a nic card and use it with my dsl.
oh well thanks again
Sounds user-friendly to me! ;)
Control Center/Look & Feel/Style/Effects/Menu effect: Disable
It's written in C++. C++, for crying out loud! Everyone knows that object-oriented programming is teh gay. Why not write it in C? C's a real language. Or even BASIC. Or Inform.
My city of ruins ;(
That is a big bunch of BS. It does NOT use a HTML renderer in its file navigator. See KDE is built on an OO methodology. ...
An HTML renderer CAN be the current "view" but so can a file browser, LDAP browser, CD browser, lan browser,
Besides Windows has explorer running in the background all the time and that's a browser.
So why have you chosen for your name a word that doesn't normally have a 'k', and put a 'k' in it? Or are you the son of a Mr and Mrs Awktagon?
It's damn near time someone decided to scrap X and write KDE directly on top of the kernel.
But which kernel? Solaris? FreeBSD, IRIX? Linux? Probably the latter, I suppose. Not that you've excluded everyone else from using Linux, are you going to insist that GNOME and GNUStep be put in the kernel as well? What about XFCE? What about Blackbox, Windowmaker and IceWM?
And after Linus has a heart attack, who is going to revive him?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
one of the nicer trolls I've seen in a while!
-a fellow troll
First, I said on top of, not in.
Second, FreeBSD over linux, although I realize chances are that if someone actually tried it, it'd be done for linux first. A smaller, less bloated system for desktops rather than something to serve a hundred terminals would be nice.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Yadda yadda... yeah, lets pull a Mozilla on X - that'll turn out well. *rolls-eyes*
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
You lie.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Well, scrapping X would automatically exclude all non-Qt applications, namely anything GTK. There are reasons to not use X, but usually it has to do with embedding (such as Qt Embedded, although there's no KDE Embedded.)
... there are so many reasons not to do that. For one, KDE crashes on me occasionally. I don't think running on top of the kernel provides enough benefits in a desktop (non-embedded) system to warrant integration.
And having it run in kernel-land
NO more apps with "G" or "K" it all sucks shit, and Apple damn it stop the fucking "i" shit christ sake
Whatever = teh lunix
not necessarily, you could definitly ditch X w/o having to ditch gtk, just check out directfb. They have gtkfb, which is a framebuffer gtk implementation.
Actually export has turned out to be a sort of misfeature. Most C++ gurus have now realised that it doesn't really do what it was hoped it would do. See this - http://www.cuj.com/current/index.htm?topic=current
(Scroll down to bottom)
"Sutter's Mill -- 'Export' Restrictions, Part 2 Until further notice: the tariffs on export are too high for everyday use."
(The whole article is only available in the print version)
In fact the very first implementation of export has turned out to be a very pyrrhic victory as said by the developers themselves. Turns out that export will need some serious redisign before any of the other C++ vendors will use it. Certainly the intent was good and one needs something like export. But export as it stands today doesn't quite cut it. The basic problem. Its too complex to implement and use and it breaks some other very basic C++ rules when you use it. Also its implementers say that it would be very difficult to give the users a consistent set of rules/advice on how to use it without getting shot in the foot. So looks like we can all forget export for a while. No need to worry about GCC or others not supporting it. Lets all wait for export v2 for that. In any case the C++ comittee agrees that they did too much of an invention with that feature without having the requisite expereince inspite of C++ compiler vendors warnign against it.
I've done a bit of research on this - the X architecture is not fundamentally flawed - it's just that some things are implemented poorly.
Current X applications do not sync with the window managers well enough. e.g. on Windows, window resizing is synchronous with repainting, whereas on X it is asynchronous - leading to a slow, "sticky" feeling and painting artifacts.
Same thing with mouse tracking - the X display refresh is not synced in any way with mouse position updates, so moving a window around feels "sticky."
I claim that it is possible to achieve as good a "feel" as Windows/GDI without any modification of the X architecture. However, window managers and GUI toolkits will need to communicate better in order to reach this goal.
You don't know what you're talking about. In the interests of cross-platformness, Qt and Gtk both treat X as a far dumber framebuffer than it actually is. Net result, abysmal performance.
You may find remote windowing "grievous" and bloaty, but I know many people like myself who use this feature everyday. You have to remember that X is often actually run on servers (without heads, even). Sure, it might make more sense to have the remote server in a different package... oh, wait, it is. If you take responsibility for your own pacakage management it's not hard to slim X down (or any other *nix program, for that matter).
It's stupid to blame X. Other window managers for X are fast and lightweight. Sure X can be improved and optimized for standalone desktop users. That doesn't change the fact that KDE and GNOME are bloated. They have features most people will never use. They come with dependencies that ought to be optional. They load umpteen libraries. They default to bells and whistles. They are not being polished enough by the distros.
In my experience Mac (OSX) is not as responsive as previous versions of GNOME or KDE on an old celeron--supposedly an inferior processor. I would say OSX can't even come close to Xfce or fluxbox, but the truth is I've never had the patience to mess with it, except to turn off the god-damned animations. The default OSX Aqua is bloated and slow.
And Windows? Get serious. There hasn't been a fast version of Windows since 3.1, and even that had to be tweaked.
The rest of the unix world seems to realize that the kernel maintainers should also handle the basic userland applications.
That's odd because the developers of Unix went on to write plan9 and that moves even more stuff out of the kernel and into the user space.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I think X should include GUI stuff. It seems to me that might significantly reduce overhead, especially when using a remote terminal.
Has nobody noticed how alien KDE is to *nix filosophy? It is more a windows concept bolted on unix! Everything that is a offspring from KDE is unusable for others not wanting the complete KDE package and filosophy and they have a very strong assimilate drive. Very unlike gnome who is delivers lots and lots of things used by others without needing Gnome. Just like the commandline of *nix: "small programs and pipe". Gnome is a toolbox with lots of tools which you can use seperate without the whole she-bang. They design it that way! And just like the commandline, people are complaining that it is to complex, but they forgetting that there is a amazingly strength in this concept!
gstreamer
pango
atk
xft2, xftconfig (discussable)
mono
Now in KDE they would be kango, Kono, ktk and so one and only usable in the KDE/qt context.
People are saying that the lots and lots of dependencies of Gnome are rediculous and praise KDE's (win32 like) approach, I say that this KDE approach is alien to and a thread for the *nix filosophy, which makes *nix so flexible.
Same thing with mouse tracking - the X display refresh is not synced in any way with mouse position updates, so moving a window around feels "sticky."
This is actually fairly fundamental to the X paradigm, which is network-oriented. There needs to be no logic on the display device, so things like mouse movements are transmitted over the network for the remote application to see and deal with. It doesn't matter to X if the network is TCP/IP over a WAN or your localhost loopback adaptor. Therefore, it has to be asynchronous, or X would appear to just "freeze" while it was waiting for the network - better that it gives you some feedback and lets you keep working while it sorts itself out than to make you wait for proper synchonization of all GUI updates.
Sun solved this with NeWS which actually does put some interactivity on the display device - for example, you could click a button and the animation of it being "pressed" would be processed on the display and just the button-pressed event sent back over the network (X will have to send mouse-moved and button-pressed events one way, and drawing instructions to display the button pressing over the network). But NeWS never caught on because other workstation vendors weren't prepared to let Sun control the standard.
X is powerful, but it was never made to be fast, and never will be without sacrificing some flexibility. From the Windows perspective the opposite is true: it was made to be fast, and can't be made as flexible as X without sacrificing speed (try using an XP remote desktop over a WAN, for example, or PC Anywhere).
I wonder, has nobody noticed how alien KDE is to *nix philosophy? It is more a windows concept bolted on *nix! Everything that is a offspring from KDE is unusable for others not wanting the complete KDE package and philosophy and they have a very strong assimilation drive, everything they see and think it is a good idea has to bee adapted (rewritten) and extended, but the KDE desktop is the only one who is profiting from their input. Very unlike the *nix philosophy, GNU (which is not Unix) and the GNU desktop: Gnome who delivers lots and lots of things used by others without needing Gnome. Just like the command-line of *nix: "small programs and pipe". Gnome development is a toolbox with lots of tools which you can use separate without the whole she-bang. They design it that way! And just like the command-line, lots of people are complaining that it is to complex, but they forgetting that there is a amazingly strength in this concept! Modules like Gstreamer, Pango, Atk, Xft2, Xftconfig (about both you can discuss but RH (==Gnome) was the drive behind it), Mono. Now in KDE they would be Kango, Ktk an Kono and so on and only usable in the KDE/QT context, because this is the way they design. People are saying that the lots and lots of dependencies of Gnome are ridiculous and praise KDEs, win32 api like, approach, I say that this KDE approach is alien to and a thread for the *nix philosophy, which makes *nix so flexible.
um.. just to englighten something to you..
:) I don't have any unused services running and eating up my cpu. KDE-3.0.4 runs here very fast, it takes 5-10 seconds to open a Konqueror window no matter I'm listening to noatun playing my mp3s, ircing, running qtella or dcgui and or browsing the web already.. And I'm not even using objprelinked binaries. Konqueror starting in 5-10 seconds satisfies me. The QT/KDE style I'm using is dotNET style, looks nice me and is fast.
:)
i'm running a box that has 333MHz Pentium-II inside with 384MB RAM with memclock 66MHz. My GNU/Linux "distribution" is LFS-type (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org), the newest afaik with patched gcc 3.2.
Since this is a "workstation" as in for movie watching (mplayer playes all divx's without framedrops
I'd recommend you to check what version you are running (kde2 is slow, i admit, at least compared to kde3) and perhaps updating your qt too could help? One thing more.. What I noticed when I upgraded from gcc 2.95.3 system to a gcc 3.2 system was a HUGE performance boost, a lot bigger than I excpected, so gcc 3.2 is what I recommend for KDE to be compiled with, because at least with this little cpu to spare.. Optimization (KDE's default) matters
-rzei
Completely wrong!
I give you an example: xfig loads much faster than kontour. Both have similar functionality and both use X. Is it Xs fault that kontour loads so slow?
And why does a simple text editor, eg. kdeit, take longer to load than a complex 3D modelling environment like blender? Both running under X?
Yes, X is adding a little bit of overhead, but even on a Pentium I at 100MHz this is neglectible.
What makes your KDE/GNOME/whatever programs slow is the huge number of libraries that need to be loaded, and for KDE additional Problems with the GNU C++ compiler which makes resolving symbols at startup slow.
With many huge libraries disk cache does not help much, because functions are spread all over the disk, you can see it from your flashing HD Light.
When did all programmers become Developers?
Please! Not more of this "X is bad for desktop machines" BS. Why is it that you trolls can talk about how bad it is, yet you can never offer viable explanations as to WHY there is a problem with it.
Give your machine a proper installation. Give your machine proper drivers for accelleration. Then come back to me and tell me what is wrong with X. I'll be waiting.
I was gonna mod you, but I figured I'd reply instead...
Windows perspective the opposite is true: it was made to be fast, and can't be made as flexible as X without sacrificing speed (try using an XP remote desktop over a WAN, for example, or PC Anywhere).
This argument is pretty ordinary. PC anywhere, years and years ago, was much faster than X now. PCAnywhere could actually be usable over a 33.6kb modem connection, and the same can definitely _not_ be said for X. It wasn't wonderful, but it was usable.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
I'll refer you to my reply to a post of similar nature, in which another troll (such as yourself) stated the same thing without backing it up with fact.
Enjoy...
Unfortunately, logging in and then counting on your fingers how long it takes for the desktop to come up does not constitute "benchmarking".
...isn't it difficult to code with tentacles?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
> KDE uses an html renderer (and hence - the
> related libraries) in its file navigator.
> Having a browser in memory is resource wasteful
> - this is why Win 3.1 and Win95 are so much faster.
Bullshit. Konqueror the filemanager does NOT I repeat NOT use an html renderer at all. Your statment was true for kfm. This was KDE-1.x, about three years ago.
If you do not use Konqueror for viewing html, khtml or kmozilla will not be loaded.
The speed difference comes from several factors.
1) Features. KDE has unicode support, i8n support, previewing, theming, is network transparent, loadable plugins....
Windows 95 is just crap compared to it.
2) Compiler and Linker. GCC is slow. The Linkers are slow. gcc favours correctness above speed. This is changing already with gcc-3.2.
3) Optimization pressure. There is noone willing to optimize for P100 with 8 MB ram, when a machine with Duron 800 and 256 MB ram costs less then 250 . Time is better spent on removing bugs and adding features than for optimizing for obsolete hardware.
Finally, KDE has become faster and faster. Optimizing too early gives shitty design. It is the last step.
KDE-3.1.x is a lot faster than KDE-1.x or 2.x or even 3.0 on a slow PC with enough (dirt cheap) memory. KDE3.x is more than fast enough on a PII-300 with 128 MB ram.
Moritz
Uh, I know. Admiral Kirk's real nemesis was Kahn. If my memory serves, Kang was a Klingon captain in a TOS episode (and maybe that Klingons-from-the-past DS9 ep.)
I thought my comment was funny. People differ. (And feh to the offtopic moderator. That's where the interesting bits are here.)
Try comparing PCAnywhere years and years ago to X years and years ago, not now.
Yeah that makes since, since KDE1 worked fine on my P133 with 32 MB ram and 2 meg PCI video card. And Gnome 1.2 worked even better on my cyrix 233. And FVWM2 was lightning fast on a 486. I'm sure it's X.
IIRC, does the most of win 3.1 and 3.11 bypass the DOS and bios functions when it has been loaded. it pretty much uses dos as a bootstrap. there are some dos functions used in the old win, but video isn't one of them. bear in mind dos viedo functions were only text based, in order to do graphics you gotta go for the metal anyway.
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
I am willing to bet that your problem is bad configuration, in particular hard disk configuration. Check out hdparm, and make sure your disks are using DMA, etc.. (LinuxGazette has a write-up)
Bullshit. Both of them result in a call to graphic driver which , generally, is better optimized on Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
First, the graphics driver doesn't do all that much these days. For example, with Xft2 and sub pixel anti-aliasing, the graphics driver doesn't even handle blitting of text anymore. Second, it depends on the drivers. The NVIDIA drivers I use, for example, are just as good as the Windows version. That said, if it's a driver problem, it's not X's fault, is it?
They use it the way it was intended.
Every fucking Qt call of say QPainter maps almost directly to Xlib function.
What else would you have them to do ?
>>>>>>>>
Do you really believe that? Qt and GTK+ use X as basically a blit engine. They do all the drawing in pixmaps (in software) then blit the results to the screen via the X server. That's most definately *not* how X was designed to be used. There are also numerous issues about not using the protocol properly. Thus, I refer you to the recent thread on the X Render mailing list about XFree86's performance.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
kyou kmust knot klike kmy kname kvery kmuch knor kmy kemail kaddress!!
kAll kyour kbases kbelong kto 'The K's'.
(kdon't kgo klutzy know, kyour knot kseeing K's keverywhere...)
My God. I post a simple comment one day (I don't post to Slashdot a whole lot, if you read my user info) and the next day I see fifteen messages in response to my post, many of them simply saying I'm a troll.
I'm not trolling!
Guess what I've done. I run ratpoison now. The branding is far less apparent now with the lack of window decorations, but I still have that gear throbbing in the corner of Konqueror. I go to the help menu, and at the bottom is "About KDE".
Now don't get me wrong, it really isn't *that* important to me. I can live with some of the branding, I don't use many KDE applications anyway. But it would be nice to do without...
But I gather a lot of people disagree with me. That's fine, I like independent thinking. But that doesn't make me a troll.
Qt doesn't even use C++ -- they have this MOC preprocessor dealy to handle their signals-and-slots connections (delegates in C# speak), so they have invented a new language (C+++) which they handle with a macro processor (as C++ once was implemented as a preprocessor to C).
Good thing you don't have any say in the matter. X in the kernel? Eliminate remote windowing? What's your next suggestion, 8.3 filenames?
I'm just sharing this information because it may be useful to others in a similar situation:
GCC 3.2 compiles Qt C++ code 20% to 30% faster on average than GCC 2.95 with the exact same compiler flags.
for example compile times for $QT_DIR/examples/table/statistics/main.cpp:
g++ 2.95: 11.59user 0.15system 0:11.74elapsed
g++ 3.2: 8.32user 0.10system 0:09.04elapsed
every little bit helps.
For the record, the use of the -fno-implicit-templates g++ compile flag did not improve Qt C++ compile times at all in my tests. I guess Qt does not use as many templates as I had previously thought.
uh Kahn was a genetically engineered human.
I know. Eugenics wars in the '90s, if I recall (it's been a loooong time since I was a Star Trek geek.) Shot into space after starting a big war, in the sleeper ship Botany Bay. Married Lt. What's-her-name, and she died. Hated Kirk, etc.
Kang was a Klingon in TOS. I don't remember when or where.
Where did I call Kahn a Klingon?