Mono required by ubuntu-desktop

Jamie McCracken jamiemcc at
Mon Jul 31 01:19:12 BST 2006

Corey Burger wrote:
> On 7/30/06, Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc at> wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> >
>> > We will ship what we feel to be the optimal tradeoff between 
>> resources and
>> > functionality.  Note that Tomboy and Mono consume nothing but disk 
>> space
>> > unless you actually run the application, so you don't need to worry 
>> about it
>> > on low-memory machines. gets pretty unhappy on such 
>> systems
>> > as well.
>> >
>> I know but you missed my point. Why should an efficient app (Gthumb) be
>> replaced with one thats considerably more inefficient by default?
> I see this claim that "Mono is bloated" being bandied about a lot.
> However, I don't see much evidence either way. In this specific
> instance, do you have hard data that gthumb uses less memory than
> fspot?

Some mono apps are more bloated than others so yeah you cant make 
sweeping general statements on it. I accept tomboy is leaner than most 
other mono apps but on the other hand I find fspot to be one of the 
worst offenders.

I suggest you import 50-60 pics or so then check memory. Last time I 
checked resident memory of fspot was around 98MB (with approx 10mb shared)

Can others come up with hard figures too so we have a balanced view?

> However, this is really beating around the bush, because the biggest
> issue is that gthumb is basically dead as an upstream, while fspot is
> very active. Gthumb also has serious issues with importing and
> stability. So even if you were to come with evidence that gthumb is
> smaller (memory wise), I I just don't see it out weighing the
> unmaintained aspect of gthumb.

I find gthumb to be usable and efficient. Its missing tags and a few 
other things (which can easily be rectified by adding tracker support to 
it) but yeah fspot is more polished and has a cool history widget.

> Oh, and lets keep this on topic of gthumb, fspot and other mono apps.
> Lets no wander off into OOo and abiword, etc or even what to ship by
> default beyond this specific issues. There are good reasons to talk
> about those, just not in this thread.

I agree but memory efficiency is an important issue especially on 
notebooks and older machines (and it aint just mono thats a problem here 
as others have pointed out). I just hope sensible defaults will be 
applied in the *desktop* whichever way it goes.

Mr Jamie McCracken

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list