meborc at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 18:34:23 UTC 2008
i'm sorry to come into between you two, but i have also felt the
responsiveness i got out of my old lappy, slip between my fingers when
running the xubuntu gutsy... it used to be so smooth and fast... now it
hogs... as in fresh install hog... therefore i have moved my lappy to
something lighter (fluxbuntu)
i understand what Jerome is saying... and i also understand why Jani needs
numbers to back it down... but how can i back down what i say with numbers,
how could i explain what i feel using xubuntu every day? i love xubuntu...
but i have to say the responsiveness has gone from it
why not the developers (before changing the programs) run some benchmarks
and get values that are really acceptable, so we (the users) could see that
the change in programs will not effect the overall responsiveness.
Jani, you need to defend your approach, i understand, but please, honestly,
don't you miss the fast-xubuntu we used to have? or are your computers all
too new and fast to see the difference?
ps. i'm not trying to push the argument... i just don't like the mentality
"feels slow? prove it" ... if it feels slow, then it is time to move on to
something faster... if it feels slow, but you are not able to prove it with
figures - it is also time to move on... sorry, but thats the way it is
On 31/01/2008, Jani Monoses <jani at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Jérôme Guelfucci wrote:
> > Well, the changes I remind:
> > - gnome-screensaver -> xscreensaver: doesn't make much difference
> If you think it does not make much difference why change it?
> But actually it makes a difference, g-s-s is better integrated with
> power management, multiple users and other possibly technologies that
> are developed in GNOME and which we can get for free if not so stubborn
> on being different from gnome.
> > - file-roller -> squeeze: squeeze is fast, light, seems to have most
> > features needed for an archive manager. It's stable, upstream answers
> > quickly to bug reports and features requests. There is a crasher In
> > Hardy (doesn't happen in Gutsy with the same version) but work is in
> > progress to fix it.
> Fast and light as oppposed to what? Do you have numbers to back that up?
> You do realize that for working with archives, most of the times the
> factors determining resource usage are the size of the data being worked
> on and not the app itself?
> > - gthumb/or whatever was before -> ristretto: ristretto is fast, light
> > and stable, same maintainer as squeeze and same postive feedback.
> I have not used ristretto, if it is better thab gqview I am all for it.
> If the only plus for it is that it comes from Xfce upstream then not.
> > - gnome-mount -> exo-mount: we just loose one feature, encrypted
> > partitions, but it's not really a key feature. This change makes it
> > relally easy to follow debian and upstream changes.
> So on the one hand you say you have maintainer resources to keep deltas
> in goffice and gnumeric (see a recent upload of livecd-rootfs by Colin
> Watson, other's time is indirectly spent because of goffice deltas)
> which do not give us any real gain, but on the other hand for something
> that is important as the features of gnome-mount (not only encryption
> but integration with user permissions ) you drop them to be easy to
> follow debian?
> I find that illogical.
> > - totem -> * : this hasn't been decided yet, maybe mplayer-gtk or keep
> it should be something that is patent free as Vincent said and friendly.
> I am glad that xfmedia is not considered but I wonder why it was put
> into the seed in the first place.
> > I've a P2 450MHz and I can tell you I really feel the difference on
> > disk usage, memory and cpu usage ! The last annoying application is
> > Firefox 2 but Firefox 3 should be released on time and should be
> > really better.
> You feel the difference in which applications' case? Could you elaborate
> on how do you feel the differences on the 3 resources you mentioned?
> That would be really useful data if more precise and confirmed by other
> users too.
> xubuntu-devel mailing list
> xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xubuntu-devel