Re:Cold hard facts about resource usage?
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
You guessed wrong, I tried Xfce on Debian.
Cold hard facts about resource usage?
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 2
Are there any resources that actually back Xfce's claim of being "light" in comparison to GNOME?
I tried Xfce several years ago and while it was nice and easy and all, I had the feeling that with a bit more memory I could just as well run GNOME with obvious benefits (feature-wise).
Today the situation is still the same IMHO. Sure, Xfce has probably a lot more features nowadays, but so does GNOME. I see the benefit in the GNOME framework: it's mature and stable, and more or less customizable. I guess it would be possible to strip out some GNOME services (e.g. desktop search) if memory is of concern. CPU usage shouldn't be an issue with GNOME (unless some background service runs, which again could be turned off if not wanted).
With that in mind: how does Xfce compare to [a minimalistic] GNOME regarding resource usage?
Note that I'm not a GNOME fanboy (I use a plain window manager), but right now it's the desktop environment I'd recommend to others.
I know... I just wanted to make a note about "alternative" P2P approaches. I really wonder why they never took off. Maybe people need even more motivation from the government(s) to realize that this (or some encrypting all traffic project) is the way to go.
This projects has been worked on for years now. I never read their papers, so I can't comment on the technical side, but they surely designed it for decentralization and anonymity: http://gnunet.org/
I know exactly what you're talking about. I often found myself programming the editor to make work easier with it. Often this killed valuable time that I could have used to program with the editor... I heavily customized Emacs over the years and though some of the stuff wasn't worth the effort, I for one still like the fact that if I want, I can do almost everything with Emacs. Of course you have to find the balance between customization addiction and regular use.
What makes Emacs so great? Is Emacs still relevant?
I think so. I think Emacs will always be a valuable all purpose tool for programmers. It's not the best anymore in every aspect (it really can't compete with all the delightful features of modern IDEs), but it still is in a general way. There will always be new programming languages and corner-case technologies around. Emacs makes it easy to adapt existing modes to these so that you can use Emacs today instead of waiting for a proper IDE for years (or forever).
Also I think that Emacs' biggest flaw (single threaded, single namespace architecture) is also it's biggest advantage: you can customize Emacs and write modes for Emacs much more easily than writing a full fledged plug-in for a "real" IDE.
The "non-cost" may be true for traffic within the operators network but AT&T (and any other mobile network operator) surely needs to pay interworking fees to other operators when sending short messages to them. In return they receive payments for incoming messages from some networks. "Some", because there are exceptions... the SMS world is complicated, but believe me there are surely costs involved for every operator (once messages cross network boundaries).
Different carriers being able to communicate with each other has nothing to do with the underlying cellular technology and everything to do with routing on the global POTS network. Oh yes it does, at least regarding SMS. The transition from GSM to CDMA (and back) is not as smooth as you might think, at least not from my experience. I'm sure this is different for voice calls, however for SMS such routes are quite troublesome.
I know what you are talking about. I routinely have 40-50 tabs open, because I'm working on many different things. For people who think this is insane: no, bookmarking does not always make sense, I instantly bookmark stuff I'm sure about to need again, this is all just temporary stuff.
An advice to you: take a look at the settings which Firefox uses for caching requests. Not just memory cache, I'm talking about the thing that appeared in 1.5 or 2.0, some rendering cache. That's the thing that "makes the back button fast", so that the previous page doesn't have to be rendered again. I'd think that this one takes up a whole lot of memory, just imagine 30 web pages, each of them cached for the last 10 requests...
Damn, I need to get more sleep! You are of course 100% correct, I guess I stopped reading the sentence yesterday when I reached the word 'devices'...:-)
Been there, done that. Firefox w/o a window manager is not really an option unless you want to get people confused with strange looking dialog windows or want to rewrite the Firefox UI. At some point I've given up on it and just used a small but very configurable window manager: openbox. It really suits perfectly for this task!
> By contrast, APT would have been done in 5 minutes, on this system.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Debian packages (.deb) are installed via dpkg, apt is 'just' a front-end which is responsible to get those packages from somewhere (CD-ROM, net,...). So if anything runs faster on Debian then it's because of dpkg.
In case you don't know: your phone is one of the "series 60" phones, which means it is capable of running Python programs. This is the real killer feature of this phone in my opinion. So... Happy Hacking!:-)
Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms [...]
Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to write. I don't understand how Google could be unhappy when people are using their brand as a verb. This certainly means that they've accomplished something big (like Xerox => xeroxing).
I don't have time to listen to the recordings yet, but I hope that they answer my concerns about the GNU GPL vs. DRM and why they think it's worth/needed to exclude software for DRM uses from the license. Some people argue that DRM has it's uses, some argue that it's a great danger to free software. I'm curious what the FSF guys have to say about DRM.
I didn't read the article, but would that be a pretty useless solution? It would be highly compatible of course, but else it would mean that you just recieve events from one mouse that is rapidly jumping around (in case you move both at once)...
I do use the tab key as a means of stepping along a number of spaces but the resulting files has exactly the number of space characters that are necessary and no tab characters at all.
Yeah. And this is exactly the way it should be today. In mature Emacs modes for example, pressing the TAB key doesn't necessarily mean that you insert an ASCII TAB character, instead it indents to the right place. Modern editors should take the burden of 'manual' indenting from the coder and instead let him focus on the semantics (without introducing a new 'standard').
I don't get it. Why do you think that people who chose the GPL are "control freaks"? What about the people chosing proprietary licenses? For me the point is to chose a free license. By chosing a license approved by the DFSG/OSI and releasing the sourcecode by uploading it to the net you already lost control, namely over distribution, wether this software's licensed under the BSD or the GNU GP license.
What makes the GNU GPL the GNU GPL is its requirement to republish the changes. This surely is a restriction for the particular person/organisation using or changing a piece of software. But it should be seen as a protection for the whole community (that is: everybody who is interested in that software); it makes sure that if someone enhances the software _all_ benefit from the changes.
Some claim that the GNU GPL discourages organisations to touch software licensed under it and that the BSD like licenses are "friendlier". As we talk about free software the important thing is how much code gets contributed back to the original project. I haven't seen any statistics (please post links if you know of such) but I would guess that the contribution ratio is about the same with both licenses: some "change encouraged" organisations using some BSD licensed software _may_ contribute back, but often do not. With the GNU GPL, far less organisations touch the code, but those who do (and distribute anything derivative) _have to_ contribute back. So I guess it's more or less the same. The GNU GPL has the whole manhood as a focus whereas BSD like licenses focus on the individual.
Re:Your #1 site for quality editorial work!
on
Manual Writing Tools?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Well, that clearly tells us that this guy's looking for "writting" system that at least supports spell checking...
Some software vendors haven't bothered much to make their product running _well_ in a multi user environment. Configuration files should not be stored in the application directory, but rather in the user profile.
Other thing to consider would be to run the browser as other (totally unprivileged) user, I guess the next incarnation of Windows has something like this onboard.
Some other poster gave the advice to teach w/o computers and instead let the students write programs on paper. That way you can avoid that they fall into the trial and error loop with todays highly interactive systems (as opposed to programming with punch cards) and instead force them to think before they actually do something. Good advice!
BUT: If you choose to go another route and actually use computers for the course, consider using ipython. Python itself gives you an interactive environment which is similiar to how Lisp was intended to use. ipython goes even further (check out the website for the features), is easy to use and comes in color!:-) It's a one time chance to introduce these people a different approach to programming (as opposed to write -> compile -> test).
I think the slowness of Debian has a lot to do with the endless discussions, too. I don't say they're irrelevant or obsolete but they can get very lengthy (and sometimes repetitive) on some topics. In effect some decicions take longer than expected and schedule's getting out of control. Nevertheless, I'm a happy Debian user.
Slashdot Mirror
You guessed wrong, I tried Xfce on Debian.
Are there any resources that actually back Xfce's claim of being "light" in comparison to GNOME?
I tried Xfce several years ago and while it was nice and easy and all, I had the feeling that with a bit more memory I could just as well run GNOME with obvious benefits (feature-wise).
Today the situation is still the same IMHO. Sure, Xfce has probably a lot more features nowadays, but so does GNOME. I see the benefit in the GNOME framework: it's mature and stable, and more or less customizable. I guess it would be possible to strip out some GNOME services (e.g. desktop search) if memory is of concern. CPU usage shouldn't be an issue with GNOME (unless some background service runs, which again could be turned off if not wanted).
With that in mind: how does Xfce compare to [a minimalistic] GNOME regarding resource usage?
Note that I'm not a GNOME fanboy (I use a plain window manager), but right now it's the desktop environment I'd recommend to others.
I know... I just wanted to make a note about "alternative" P2P approaches. I really wonder why they never took off. Maybe people need even more motivation from the government(s) to realize that this (or some encrypting all traffic project) is the way to go.
This projects has been worked on for years now. I never read their papers, so I can't comment on the technical side, but they surely designed it for decentralization and anonymity:
http://gnunet.org/
What makes Emacs so great? Is Emacs still relevant?
I think so. I think Emacs will always be a valuable all purpose tool for programmers. It's not the best anymore in every aspect (it really can't compete with all the delightful features of modern IDEs), but it still is in a general way. There will always be new programming languages and corner-case technologies around. Emacs makes it easy to adapt existing modes to these so that you can use Emacs today instead of waiting for a proper IDE for years (or forever). Also I think that Emacs' biggest flaw (single threaded, single namespace architecture) is also it's biggest advantage: you can customize Emacs and write modes for Emacs much more easily than writing a full fledged plug-in for a "real" IDE.
The "non-cost" may be true for traffic within the operators network but AT&T (and any other mobile network operator) surely needs to pay interworking fees to other operators when sending short messages to them. In return they receive payments for incoming messages from some networks. "Some", because there are exceptions... the SMS world is complicated, but believe me there are surely costs involved for every operator (once messages cross network boundaries).
I know what you are talking about. I routinely have 40-50 tabs open, because I'm working on many different things. For people who think this is insane: no, bookmarking does not always make sense, I instantly bookmark stuff I'm sure about to need again, this is all just temporary stuff.
An advice to you: take a look at the settings which Firefox uses for caching requests. Not just memory cache, I'm talking about the thing that appeared in 1.5 or 2.0, some rendering cache. That's the thing that "makes the back button fast", so that the previous page doesn't have to be rendered again. I'd think that this one takes up a whole lot of memory, just imagine 30 web pages, each of them cached for the last 10 requests...
Damn, I need to get more sleep! You are of course 100% correct, I guess I stopped reading the sentence yesterday when I reached the word 'devices'... :-)
He said: "The IMEI number is there to facilitate identifying mobile devices ..."
You said: "The IMEI just identifies what equipment you are using."
Been there, done that. Firefox w/o a window manager is not really an option unless you want to get people confused with strange looking dialog windows or want to rewrite the Firefox UI. At some point I've given up on it and just used a small but very configurable window manager: openbox. It really suits perfectly for this task!
> By contrast, APT would have been done in 5 minutes, on this system.
...). So if anything runs faster on Debian then it's because of dpkg.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Debian packages (.deb) are installed via dpkg, apt is 'just' a front-end which is responsible to get those packages from somewhere (CD-ROM, net,
In case you don't know: your phone is one of the "series 60" phones, which means it is capable of running Python programs. This is the real killer feature of this phone in my opinion. So... Happy Hacking! :-)
... and mine will be called "Duke Nukem Forever"!
Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms [...]
Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to write. I don't understand how Google could be unhappy when people are using their brand as a verb. This certainly means that they've accomplished something big (like Xerox => xeroxing).
I don't have time to listen to the recordings yet, but I hope that they answer my concerns about the GNU GPL vs. DRM and why they think it's worth/needed to exclude software for DRM uses from the license. Some people argue that DRM has it's uses, some argue that it's a great danger to free software. I'm curious what the FSF guys have to say about DRM.
I didn't read the article, but would that be a pretty useless solution? It would be highly compatible of course, but else it would mean that you just recieve events from one mouse that is rapidly jumping around (in case you move both at once)...
I do use the tab key as a means of stepping along a number of spaces but the resulting files has exactly the number of space characters that are necessary and no tab characters at all.
Yeah. And this is exactly the way it should be today. In mature Emacs modes for example, pressing the TAB key doesn't necessarily mean that you insert an ASCII TAB character, instead it indents to the right place. Modern editors should take the burden of 'manual' indenting from the coder and instead let him focus on the semantics (without introducing a new 'standard').
I don't get it. Why do you think that people who chose the GPL are "control freaks"? What about the people chosing proprietary licenses? For me the point is to chose a free license. By chosing a license approved by the DFSG/OSI and releasing the sourcecode by uploading it to the net you already lost control, namely over distribution, wether this software's licensed under the BSD or the GNU GP license.
What makes the GNU GPL the GNU GPL is its requirement to republish the changes. This surely is a restriction for the particular person/organisation using or changing a piece of software. But it should be seen as a protection for the whole community (that is: everybody who is interested in that software); it makes sure that if someone enhances the software _all_ benefit from the changes.
Some claim that the GNU GPL discourages organisations to touch software licensed under it and that the BSD like licenses are "friendlier". As we talk about free software the important thing is how much code gets contributed back to the original project. I haven't seen any statistics (please post links if you know of such) but I would guess that the contribution ratio is about the same with both licenses: some "change encouraged" organisations using some BSD licensed software _may_ contribute back, but often do not. With the GNU GPL, far less organisations touch the code, but those who do (and distribute anything derivative) _have to_ contribute back. So I guess it's more or less the same. The GNU GPL has the whole manhood as a focus whereas BSD like licenses focus on the individual.
Well, that clearly tells us that this guy's looking for "writting" system that at least supports spell checking...
... what about sticking with reST and using m4 or other macro package to do repeated tasks?
Some software vendors haven't bothered much to make their product running _well_ in a multi user environment. Configuration files should not be stored in the application directory, but rather in the user profile.
Other thing to consider would be to run the browser as other (totally unprivileged) user, I guess the next incarnation of Windows has something like this onboard.
I'd buy a few tribbles. But I guess they want something like 500$ for each of those cheap fuzzballs...
Some other poster gave the advice to teach w/o computers and instead let the students write programs on paper. That way you can avoid that they fall into the trial and error loop with todays highly interactive systems (as opposed to programming with punch cards) and instead force them to think before they actually do something. Good advice!
:-) It's a one time chance to introduce these people a different approach to programming (as opposed to write -> compile -> test).
BUT: If you choose to go another route and actually use computers for the course, consider using ipython. Python itself gives you an interactive environment which is similiar to how Lisp was intended to use. ipython goes even further (check out the website for the features), is easy to use and comes in color!
I think the slowness of Debian has a lot to do with the endless discussions, too. I don't say they're irrelevant or obsolete but they can get very lengthy (and sometimes repetitive) on some topics. In effect some decicions take longer than expected and schedule's getting out of control. Nevertheless, I'm a happy Debian user.