On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:14:18 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: [snipperoo] > However if you cared about performance you wouldn't be running Gnome or > Kde ;) Some of my half-dozen machines are 64-bit and some not; so I do care about seeing this thread reach a resolution or consensus, if it can. But your jest gives me a sneakin' hunch that "performance" has some technical meaning. Izzat so?? I had a machine once, running some early FC release, with some problems that I don't remember having understood, as a result of which it would throw itself at times into what I believe was a particular one of the super-lightweight window managers. I couldn't manage to do diddly- squat with it -- maybe, at best, get it to shut down in an orderly way, and try again whenever I got my nerve or my temper back. I speak to the point, not to re-ignite ancient religious wars (and you may notice I have mentioned only Gnome <he wrote, ducking fast>), but merely to point out that to some of us, Gnome is a precondition of getting any performance at all -- at least, any of what I'd call performance. Alpha Plus Technoids' mileage may vary, of course, as usual. Which camp the OP belongs in, I have no clue. As for me, I vote three hearty cheers for the Gnome folks! -- Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
