GuTSy is slow!

[Derek Broughton]

Mario Vukelic wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 20:17 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> 
>> But they're still there.  Like ttf-baekmuk!
> 
> aptitude remove?
> 
>>   It's bloat taken to the logical
>> limit when it seems drive space is limitless.
> 
> It's the logical result of a distro working automagically in all
> circumstances.
> 
>> How about bluetooth?  I _can't_ manage to turn that off.
> 
> aptitude search blue and remove things? 

Great idea.  I'm really not stupid Mario.  I did that.  It got
reinstalled...

> But the funny thing is that you 
> complain about Ubuntu making stuff work that you do not need but paid
> for. Why did you buy a bluetooth laptop in the first place when having
> it is such a problem.

What on earth makes you think I did that?  That's my complaint.  It should
be possible with all the (very smart) hardware identification we have, for
those things to only be activated if the hardware is there.  I have two
laptops without bluetooth, and the damn things are still running the
bluetooth daemons.
> 
>> How about the
>> ridiculous network notification daemon, which makes it impossible to use
>> konqueror to browse a localhost website, unless you're actually connected
>> to the Internet (same problem with kmail and local imap servers).
> 
> Dunno what you are talking about, must be a KDE thing.

The notification daemon isn't, but the KDE client implementations seem to be
the real problem.

>> Because it still isn't reliable?  The first thing I do after booting up
>> my
>> laptop is hibernate it.  NM will not associate with my network on boot.
>> Hibernate/resume, and suddenly NM works.  For too many people, it's much
>> worse than that.  And the problem is - however small you say the overhead
>> is - it's a problem just waiting to happen.  It needs udev, dbus, nm,
>> hal, and who knows how many cooperating subsystems.
> 
> Freaking disk mounting needs udev, dbus, and hal, so I don't think this
> will be the problem. If NM does not work, then it should be fixed
> removed.

Absolutely.  The point is that there was an almost working solution, and it
was replaced by another _almost_ working solution that was vastly more
complex.  I've got no problem with adding complex solutions if they improve
on the simple ones, but it hasn't happened in this case.

> And I really don't know wtf you are bitching about. 

I wasn't.  I was explaining why the other poster might reasonably see NM as
a problem.  And replacing foul language with a TLA doesn't make it any more
polite.

> I know your level of 
> expertise well enough to know that you are aware that ALL you need to do
> to make an interface not managed by NM is defining it
> in /etc/network/interfaces like you have always done. Then NM leaves it
> alone, problem solved.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.  I've used _all_
the alternatives.  NM is the best of a bad lot.  As I said in a prior post,
I use it and I like it, but I can well understand why many don't, and for a
desktop machine, it _should_ be possible to use the much
simpler /etc/network/interfaces method and never even start NM - _without_
needing my level of expertise.
-- 
derek